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

RE: i0001: EPRs as identifiers (why XML?)

From: Vinoski, Stephen <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:06:08 -0500
Message-ID: <13AC4E67178F4D4EA31BB1BA645303132DBDFA@amereast-ems2.boston.amer.iona.com>
To: "Paco Curbera, Francisco" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

A very big +1


-----Original Message-----
From: Paco Curbera, Francisco 
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 11:41 AM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Cc: David Booth; David Orchard; public-ws-addressing@w3.org;
Subject: RE: i0001: EPRs as identifiers (why XML?)

Needless to say, we at IBM completely disagree on this one; WS-Addressing
is not only about SOAP just as WSDL is not only about SOAP either. This is
in fact pretty explicitly stated in the spec itself so I can only read
Jonathan's statement as a wishful thinking. I also believe that IBM is not
alone in understanding how important it is to support other messaging
models and protocols since we are not the only ones working in
multiprotocol enterprise IT scenarios.

I support the current spec or something close to it as the best chance at a
compromise that works; however, linking it to a SOAP only approach is a
self defeating position which IBM is certainly not planning to support.


                      "Jonathan Marsh"                                                                                                         
                      <jmarsh@microsoft.com>          To:       "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>                                                  
                      Sent by:                        cc:       "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>              
                      public-ws-addressing-req        Subject:  RE: i0001: EPRs as identifiers (why XML?)                                      
                      11/21/2004 10:08 AM                                                                                                      

David Booth wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 15:09, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > It's
> > designed to work with SOAP, which defines headers for the purpose of
> > delivering the message to the ultimate SOAP destination.
> I guess this raises an important question: To what extent should
> Addressing be tied to SOAP?

I think the Microsoft position on this should be clear by now (though
I'm sure others disagree).  WS-Addressing no more and no less than a
SOAP extension.  Removing features from Addressing because they don't
apply outside the SOAP world cripples the spec.  Features added solely
to support non-SOAP exchanges represent unnecessary complication.  We
need to abstract SOAP out just enough to accommodate the two versions of

To flip your question around, what are the use cases for addressing
(using more than just a URI) outside SOAP?
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 23:06:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:21 UTC