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: on behalf of Savas Parastatidis 
 Sent: Mon 07/02/2005 10:27 
 To:; Jonathan Marsh 
 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
 > 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 20:28:55 UTC