- From: Vikas Deolaliker <vikasd@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:18:48 -0800
- To: "'Vinoski, Stephen'" <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
- Cc: <vikasd@yahoo.com>
Where in the document does it cover changes to the SOAP-Binding document? Given the current structure of including all the transport end ports into the metadata element is confusing as a processor cannot unambiguously tell which port has what properties. Aren't we essentially trying to give a multichannel access to a back end service? If so, why not define an element called channel and include the port address and all meta data of that port into this element. Inclusion of metadata by reference for supposedly short lived EPR may need to be thought through. If metadata is dereferenceable then how do we do garbage collection in the processor? Allowing only by-value may solve this as the time-to-live for EPR will apply to the value as well. Vikas -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Vinoski, Stephen Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 6:26 AM To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org Subject: pointer to detailed metadata proposal As mentioned in the teleconference yesterday, the detailed proposal for EPR metadata can be found at [1]. If you don't want to read the whole thing just yet (note that overall it's really not that long, though), the first few paragraphs summarize the proposal. In essence, this proposal suggests that there be a single element in the EPR for containing metadata, suggests a "shape" for that metadata container, and extends allowable WSDL metadata with an optional service element. It also preserves the WSDL metadata elements that were already present in the EPR. --steve [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0016.html>
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2005 19:23:05 UTC