RE: pointer to detailed metadata proposal

Vikas Deolaliker wrote:
> Where in the document does it cover changes to the
> SOAP-Binding document?

There are no changes to the SOAP binding. All of the metadata the proposal deals with pertains to WSDL.

> 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.

Not sure I follow. We're reusing existing WSDL elements to convey the metadata, so they convey the same information that they convey for WSDL.

> 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.

Actually, this proposal addresses both the issue of EPR metadata and multichannel access.

The submitters did not want to invent alternative elements to contain metadata when existing elements do just fine.

> 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.

Not sure what garbage you're talking about collecting -- can you explain? If an EPR has a particular time-to-live, then any metadata reference it contains is also subject to that time-to-live, and so is the metadata that the metadata reference refers to, at least as far as fetching it via that particular metadata reference is concerned.

--steve

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2005 14:27:06 UTC