- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:36:40 -0000
- To: <dbooth@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
David here are two simple use-cases: 1) message correlation a message sent to an endpoint asynchronously. later another node receives one or more reply messages which need to be tied back to the original message for processing. This is usually resolved by the originating message sending a unique message identifier which is returned as one of a number of possible 'correlation identifiers' in subsequent messages. MOM will often provide a mechanism to dispatch correlated messages back to the original sender agents which may be one of many similar agents hiding behind a single endpoint address, or allow an agent to select messages from an endpoint queue 2) state identification e.g. a shopping cart id. Rather than sending the whole message context repeatedly a state identifier is sent in each message which dispatches the message to an existing conversation established through the first interaction or out of band. Typically the state id resolves to a thread or process id, a database row id, an EJB id, a backed socket id, etc. In each use-case, the additional identification information sent in the message is independent of the endpoint address to which the message is delivered. The endpoint address often being a generic HTTP proxy POST to 'http://www.example.com/soapPort' or a message queue such as: mailto:soapMessages@example.com. I could imagine representing either of the above ids: a) inside the endpoint URI, e.g. as query parameters b) as addressing properties c) as addressing parameters d) using some other heavyweight state-management specification e) inside the body of the message I don't like collapsing this information into the endpoint address (a), since i think this identification is orthogonal to the delivery address. i don't like (d), because i think this is lightweight stuff, akin to cookies, and i certainly don't like (e) because i want middleware to handle correlation and state maintenance. Reading our specification, message-correlation would appear to be a property and state identification a parameter. So that just leaves me deciding on the format of the identification information itself. TBH i'm probably just being thick, but i'm still very unclear of the advantages in reference properties and parameters being tree structured XML over a flat list of name value pairs, or even just a sequence of URI values. Paul -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of David Booth Sent: Wed 17/11/2004 07:31 To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org Cc: Subject: Issue 0001: Use cases for Reference Properties? What are the use cases that require Reference Properties? If the WG is contemplating a feature that runs counter to the Web Architecture, then I would think it would be critical to back it up with solid use cases that the WG agrees are important. On the other hand, if people cannot agree on the use cases that require Reference Properties, this may be symptomatic of a different problem *masquerading* as the need for Reference Properties. I would like very much to see the use cases that require Reference Properties. Can anyone supply pointers? BTW, Tom Rutt also asked for them (though less pointedly): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Nov/0373.html -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 18:36:02 UTC