- From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 08:53:00 +0000
- To: "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>
+1 I'm not so sure about To, but there is an argument about ReplyTo. But luckily it's optional. Now why is that? Probably because it isn't needed by every user ;-) Mark. On 4 Nov 2004, at 21:47, Jim Webber wrote: > 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 09:06:44 UTC