- From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:48:24 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Vinoski, Stephen" <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>
- cc: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Bergersen, Rebecca" <Rebecca.Bergersen@iona.com>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
> Where I come from, endpoints can be accessed > over any number of transports and protocols. Why limit an EPR to > describing only a single path to an endpoint? There is much middleware > prior art in exsitence that proves that such a limit is completely > unnecessary. Do all the choices have to be enumerated in every *instance* of a message? Does it often happen that the middleware layer tries a variety of transports, choosing which ones dynamically on a per-message basis? In my (limited) experience, deciding which of many transports/paths is done at the sender-side, at message initiation time. If it fails, the middleware lets the sender know, and the sender then says "okay, try this one." Thnis would argue for multiple paths in the server description, and not in each message instance. Are there many counter-examples? Enough to justify the complexity? /r$ -- Rich Salz Chief Security Architect DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 22:48:27 UTC