W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2000

RE: XP Service URIs

From: Oisín Hurley <ohurley@iona.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:04:23 -0000
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003201c0547c$5a1f9130$9f03020a@psychobilly>
>Allowing optional expression of destination URI sounds like a good idea.

In fact, I think mandatory expression of the destination URI is even
better. There has been some conversation about the need to identify
the service instance endpoint in a separate manner to the protocol
instance endpoint. That is, to identify the XP processor for whom
the message is intended.

>Does expression of the destination URI need to be in the base protocol or
is
>it sufficient if the base protocol has sufficient extensibility mechanisms
>so that destination URI (and other routing information?) can be added?

Definitely in the base protocol model I would think.

>I tend to think of this and similar questions as though we are asking of
XML
>whether the XML 1.0 specification needed to define a "person" element, a
>"title" element, etc. or whether it is sufficient to do as XML 1.0 did and
>provide only the extensibility mechanism.  XML 1.0 plus namespaces
certainly
>did define a few things, for example the "xmlns" attribute and namespace.
>Is routing information more like "xmlns" or more like "title"?

A namespace can give you an idea of the service 'type' that you want to
address, but there is more info necessary to point to a service 'instance'.


 --oh

--
ohurley at iona dot com
+353 1 637 2639
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2000 07:04:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT