RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47

+1, seems likely i might want my 'address' to point to a distribution list,
or a pointer redirected via configuration in my server.

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Savas Parastatidis 
 Sent: Mon 07/02/2005 10:27 
 To: tom@coastin.com; Jonathan Marsh 
 Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
 Subject: RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
 
 


 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 20:28:55 UTC