- From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:00:17 +0000
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>
On 4 Nov 2004, at 22:44, 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. Come on Dave, that's unfair. If you don't want to have open discussions about the utility of something in a specification then don't take it to a standards body. If the real reason behind taking WS-Addr to W3C was to get it rubber stamped as is, then I'd like to know that now. Mark. > > 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 09:06:42 UTC