W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2005

RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:27:48 -0000
Message-ID: <37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA8001BA8169@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:23 UTC