Re: WS-Addr issues

So Paul, you'd be happy to see it as an optional part of the spec?

Mark.

On 5 Nov 2004, at 16:46, <paul.downey@bt.com> wrote:

>>  why isn't the action "Southern Gas, accounts department" with the
>> address "London"?  Or "Southern Gas, accounts department, London" and
>> the address "U.K"?  Or "Joe-the-A/R-guy", "accounts department, ..."?
>
> i see the address as a route to an endpoint and the action as 'behind 
> the curtain'
> routing in endpoint specific terms. the post office needs the address 
> of the
> gas board, but doesn't know or care about what "accounts" means.
>
>  moving  "southern Gas" from the address into the action means it 
> won't be delivered.
> [[ actually this reminds me of  the rude address "Derek and Clive" 
> used to
> send a letter to the Director General of the BBC ]].
>
>> I suggest to you that what you described is the address, not an 
>> action.
>> The action, in the case of bill payment, is implicit and could be
>> described as perhaps "process this", "accept this", "DATA"[1],
>> "POST"[2][3], or any other generic/uniform semantic you might care to
>> name.
>
>
> i'm suggesting that the contents of action isn't significant and can 
> have
> whatever semantics an endpoint wishes to place on them. it could be a 
> verb
> "processBill", a noun "accounts", something opaque "pp3454322", or
> something meaningless "stuffHappens".
>
> i'm playing catch-up here, but i've yet to spot the argument against 
> making
> action optional, only "best practice" positions from folks wanting to
> remove it completely, which seem divisive and go against the status 
> quo.
>
> Paul

Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 17:14:49 UTC