- From: Steve Maine <steve.maine@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:21:45 -0800
- To: tom@coastin.com
- Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 15:40:58 -0500, Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> wrote: > Otherwise I am not at all clear on how the "logical" uri gets mapped to > the various > transport addresses required for the variants desired. The intent of [TransportAddress]/[RequestUri] was to remove the need to define such a mapping. By including the transport address explicitly, you don't need to a complicated mechansim to divine multiple protocol-specific addresses based on a single URI. That said, I could see a resonable default rule in place whereby the value of [RequestUri] is assumed to be the same as [Address] if a different value is not explicitly provided. The rules for squirting the value of [RequestUri] into the appropriate place in the underlying protocol would be implied by the value's URI scheme. -steve http://hyperthink.net/blog
Received on Sunday, 6 February 2005 22:21:46 UTC