Re: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo

Agreed, its a very valid use case. I question
whether ReplyTo is the best location for this
information.  As the text "ReplyTo" implies,
to me, this EPR should be used for replies or
responses (messages with a wsa:RelatesTo).
If the sender of the original messages wishes to
provide an EPR for "future correspondence" then
I would think the "From" EPR would be better
suited for this overloading, or even a new
EPR to convey this information.  Overloading
ReplyTo for use in non-request/response flows
does not seem appropriate.

Also, if you combine this with the misleading
text in wsa:ReplyTo and wsa:FaultTo, where the
client is lead to believe it can control whether
or not messages will be generated through the
presence or lack of certain WS-A EPRs, there
seems to be a lot of overloading and confusion
abound.  :-]

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

> 
> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes:
> > 
> > OK, it depends on what you mean when you say
> 'generate a reply'. Do you
> > mean 
> > 
> > a) 'generate a reply as part of the same WSDL MEP'
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > b) 'generate a reply, not necessarily part of the
> same WSDL MEP'
> > 
> > I have certain protocols that do specify a [reply
> endpoint], do expect
> > (hope?) that a reply to be sent at some point, but
> NOT as part of the
> > same WSDL operation as the initial message.
> 
> +1. This fits nicely with BPEL for example .. the
> presence of ReplyTo
> can be used to update the EPR for a partner (or is
> it partnerLink
> now; I've lost track). A message sent to that
> partner later can use
> this updated address even though it has nothing to
> do with the WSDL 
> MEP that was caused the original message (exchange).
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> 
> 


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


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

Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 13:20:57 UTC