W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 08:36:39 +0000
Message-Id: <FA480105-2FCE-11D9-AAFA-00039399DACE@arjuna.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>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>

Good to know, but I fail to see how that statement matches with your 
previous one. Unfortunately it's a fact of standards work that 
sometimes these things take longer than originally expected if full and 
frank and open discussions are to take place. I agree that we don't 
want this exercise to just drag on and on (there was too much of that 
in the WS-Arch group), but let's have a good discussion for a few days, 
log an issue, and vote.


On 5 Nov 2004, at 20:05, David Orchard wrote:

> I 100% believe in having open discussions about utility of something in
> a spec.  I also 100% believe in the charter of the WG and particularly
> the schedule and basis of deliverables.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
>> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:00 AM
>> To: David Orchard
>> Cc: Jim Webber; Marc Hadley; Francisco Curbera; public-ws-
>> addressing@w3.org; Savas Parastatidis;
> public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: WS-Addr issues
>> 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 Saturday, 6 November 2004 08:37:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:20 UTC