- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:50:16 -0800
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- CC: Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org, Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
David Orchard wrote: > With: > - Jim wanting to get rid of ref props/params and Action (and by > extension I'm wondering if messageid and relatesTo should be removed > IHO), > - Marc wanting to add lifecycle to EPRs and make To Optional, > - Anish wanting to make Service Qname required for EPRs, Address > optional, > Action a child of To:, > - Glen wanting ref props/params as child of To:, > > This feels to me like some people want to start from scratch. I don't > think I signed up for a WS-Addressing 2.0 that will take N years. > As opposed to rubber-stamping of current WS-Addressing spec with ed. changes ;-) -Anish -- > Dave > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org > > [mailto:public-ws-addressing- > >>request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Webber >>Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:47 PM >>To: Francisco Curbera; Marc Hadley >>Cc: Mark Little; public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing- >>request@w3.org; Savas Parastatidis >>Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues >> >> >>Paco: >> >> >>>Action is not part of the EPR; I guess you mean make it an >>>optional message header. Still, I guess your point is like >>>the one about recognizing that the <To> information may be >>>carried by the transport: you do agree it must be there but >>>you argue it may be found in many different places (body, >>>SOAPAction, etc...). I would still disagree, however: this >>>just makes everything much more complicated than is really needed. >> >>On the contrary it makes good sense to have addressing information > > like > >>"to" in an addressing spec. It makes less sense to have "intent" or >>"dispatch" information in an addressing spec, and (controversy ahead) >>very little sense whatsoever to have "context" information in an >>addressing spec. >> >>So - in addition to seeing off wsa:action I would also like to see >>refprops/refparams removed. Certainly people will want to populate the >>header space with particular header blocks, but bodging this through > > an > >>addressing mechanism seems a poor factoring. >> >>Jim >>-- >>http://jim.webber.name > > >
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 00:52:38 UTC