RE: WS-A Issue 28 - Multiple ports

Can see that reasoning.  That's why I wanted to see
Steve's write-up.  Would you say the same logic
applies to reference parameters?  My reading of an EPR
is that the entire EPR (address and reference
properties/parameters) go together. So my
interpretation was that if someone had a new <address>
they may need new reference properties/parameters;
especially if those properties/parameters influenced
how the transport specific processing is done to (from
the spec) "properly dispatch messages" on the
receiving end.

But like you said: At least that's the way I look at
it.   :-]

--- Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
wrote:

> The ref props are *not* address specific! Only the
> actual address would
> be:
> 
> <EndpointReference>
>   
>
<Address>logical-address-or-"default"-binding-address</Address>
>    <ReferenceProperties> .. </ReferenceProperties>
>    <Policy>
>       assertions giving alternate binding details
> (address)
>    </Policy>
> </EndpointReference>
> 
> If the ref props are binding specific then we're
> talking about different
> service interactions not about the same "thing" with
> multiple alternative
> access paths.
> 
> At least that's the way I look at it.
> 
> Sanjiva.
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: brinild 
>   To: Vinoski, Stephen 
>   Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
>   Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 7:23 AM
> 
> 
>   Steve - could you give an example of what one of
> these Multiple Port EPRs might look like?  I'm
> wondering how the reference properties would be
> grouped since they may be address specific.
> 
>   "Vinoski, Stephen" <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>     My apologies for being unclear. My answer had
> two parts: one about the target of a message, and
> the other about messages sent to a particular target
> where the messages contain addressing information
> about other (third party) services.
> 
>     1. For the target, there's no requirement to
> always send the whole multi-address EPR with each
> message. This is because the target normally already
> knows the addresses by which it's reachable. There
> are cases, however, such as with routers that switch
> messages from one protocol/transport/format to
> another, that is made possible only by sending the
> whole multi-address EPR for the target. So sending
> the whole target EPR needn't be mandatory, but it
> should be allowed.
> 
>     2. If you want to send an EPR for a third party
> service as part of a message to a target service,
> e.g., send a callback EPR to some event service to
> register for fut! ure notifications, then you need
> to send the whole EPR for the third party.
> 
>     Hopefully that's clearer.
> 
>     --steve
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com]
>     Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:25 PM
>     To: Vinoski, Stephen
>     Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana;
> public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>     Subject: RE: WS-A Issue 28 - Multiple ports
> needed in an EPR
> 
> 
>     > Sanjiva is right. (I already answered this the
> previous time you asked
>     > it, Rich; see [1].)
> 
>     I couldn't make sense of your answer.
> 
>     Thanks.
> 
>     -- 
>     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   -B 
> 
>   Brinild@yahoo.com
>   http://brinild.blogspot.com
> 
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Do you Yahoo!?
>   Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com


=====
Brinild@yahoo.com
http://brinild.blogspot.com


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com

Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 14:40:36 UTC