- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:50:20 -0500
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 15:00, Martin Gudgin wrote: . . . > > In other words, the use of different customerKeys (or even different > > policies) does not adequately *motivate* the need for Reference > > Properties. It would be far more instructive to use an example that > > logically requires a different interface. > > Why? Reference properties can be used to distinguish between services > that differ by something other than interface/porttype... Of course they *can*. But the point of a motivating example is to show that the proposed solution is *necessary* -- not that it is *possible*. If the problem could just as well be solved using other approaches (such as Reference *Parameters* or merely URIs) then the need for the proposed solution has not been demonstrated. It's far more compelling to say that S1 and S2 should be externally viewed as different services (and thus should have different Web resource identifiers) if they have different *interfaces* than if they merely differ in the value of some policy or other input parameter. -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Thursday, 25 November 2004 01:50:32 UTC