- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:46:32 -0800
- To: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Vinoski, Stephen" <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>, "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
What does "lightweight function" mean? Do you mean an HTTP GET request? A new "WS-Addressing GetMetadata" operation? WS-A would either have to reference an external function or create it's own. I'm pretty sure that the WSA charter doesn't include defining or referencing new operations. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:39 PM > To: Jim Webber; Vinoski, Stephen; Doug Davis > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org > Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues > > > My only concern is that WS-Metadata Exchange is a bit heavyweight. > How about a lightweight function that took the URI from the EPR as > argument. > > All the best, Ashok > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Webber > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:52 PM > To: Vinoski, Stephen; Doug Davis > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org > Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues > > > Hey Steve, > > > While that's true, it doesn't help unless the contract address is > > associated with the EPR such that having the EPR can get you to the > > contract. > > Yes you're right - I'll be more explicit: I think it's OK to not have WSDL > contract information embedded in an EPR provided that the WSDL contract > can be obtained using the EPR (for example as part of a WS- > MetaDataExchange message exchange). > > Jim > -- > http://jim.webber.name > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 22:46:54 UTC