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

RE: WS-Addr issues

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 01:07:10 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633803E00B6C@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>, "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Webber
> Sent: 04 November 2004 21:47
> 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, I draw from this that if the spec was called WS-Foo, and this was
the WS-Foo WG this objection would go away...

> 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.

RefProps/Params are NOT a generic way for specifying what SOAP headers a
service requires. They *ARE* part of the address information. Again, to
use the postal analogy, consider the address:

Financial Controller
Department 63465
One Microsoft Way

The postal service will use the last four lines (at most) to get the
letter to the correct place. The internal postal delivery service inside
Microsoft will use the top two lines to get the letter to the correct
person. I see the former as being like the [address] portion of an EPR
and the latter as being like [reference properties]. Both are needed to
get the letter into the right hands.

Received on Saturday, 6 November 2004 09:07:14 UTC

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