- From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:27:48 -0000
- To: <tom@coastin.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Hi Tom,
> If what Gudge is describing is required, we might consider a multiple
> Protocol profile structure
> for the "EPR". This is what IONA was getting at. We could represent
> all the variant
> transport addresses required in the EPR.
>
> Otherwise I am not at all clear on how the "logical" uri gets mapped
to
> the various
> transport addresses required for the variants desired.
>
There may not be a need to map the "logical" URI to a specific transport
address. Imagine a service with a logical address
'urn:chocolates:service' which sells chocolates. You want to buy a
chocolate from a peer-to-peer network of services without caring about
the actual endpoint of the service that will serve you.
<soap:Envelope>
<soap:Header>
<wsa:To>urn:chocolates:service</wsa:To>
</soap:Header>
<soap:Body>
<m:OrderForm>
<m:noChocolateBars>10</m:noChocolateBars>
<m:maxAmmountPerChocolateBar>1000</m:maxAmmountPerChocolateBar>
</m:OrderForm>
</soap:Body>
</soap:Envelope>
All you have to do is just give this message to the P2P network which
will know how to do deal with it. No need to go from a logical to a
transport-specific address for this service. But even if you had to,
there is a use case for using logical addresses as indexes in registries
where transport-specific endpoints can be found at runtime ("give me all
the transport endpoints of the urn:chocolates:service service").
Regards,
.savas.
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 10:28:39 UTC