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
> 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.


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").

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