- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:14:02 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20050117161402.GE3952@w3.org>
Hi Dave and Mark. This is indeed very encouraging. * David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> [2005-01-16 14:16-0800] [..] > 1. Consider a stateful interaction model where ref. properties are > > interaction data and the full state of the interaction (in the form of > > actual business data: a shopping cart, for example); this usage follows > > the canonical stateless implementation that http cookies allow. In fact, > > the semantics of ref props in this usage case are not very different > > from cookie semantics except for the fact that WS-Addressing does not > > define an EPR lifecycle. The EPR in this situation acts as a mere > > packaging mechanism for transmitting to the service requester the URI > > address + state that is characteristic of a particular interaction. In > > particular, there is only one identifier involved here, the URI > > providing the network address. The state represented by the ref. props. > > has no identification function in this case. The EPR is nothing but an > > XML envelope for the two. To reiterate, the EPR is not an identifier > > but a container used to specify echoed state information. Aren't you describing a use for reference parameters here, and not reference properties, then? > 2. The use of EPRs and ref props as a server side "identifier" > > (as opposed to client side identifiers) is another possible and probable > > use case. Here, the combination of URI and ref. props. is used by the > > infrastructure to retrieve stateful artifacts associated with the > > interactions. Typically, in these cases the internal implementation of > > the server side provides for mechanisms to compare two EPRs for > > "sameness" and can operate with proper id semantics internally. > > Reference properties carry server side specific data (not business data > > as before). [..] * David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> [2005-01-16 22:17-0800] > Yeah, we should remove that wording as it's true yet implies the client > will make use of the EPRs for identification purposes. I have no > problems with RefPs being used for identification, but it's by no means > the only case. So, if only the server-side is concerned with what RefP's are used for, and that the wording about the identifying role of [reference properties] should be removed, then doesn't that it means that [reference properties] and [reference parameters] are equally opaque bags of XML data from the requester's perspective? * Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> [2005-01-16 23:48-0500] > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:51:59PM -0800, David Orchard wrote: > > EPRs aren't defined to be identifiers. An EPR may contain identifiers, > > but it may contain state. Therefore, there's no conflict with EPRs (as > > a class) as they stand with advice to use URIs for identifiers. > > This is very encouraging, and if that were the case I agree that there > would be no issue. But for this; > > "A reference may contain a number of individual properties that are > required to identify the entity or resource being conveyed." > -- http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-ws-addressing-20040810/#_Toc77464317 > > Your RefProp example in your initial post didn't use them as identifiers > though; it used them as RefParams in fact. So I'll go out on a limb and > ask; would you be content with removing RefProps? Alternately, would > you be content with saying that RefProps shouldn't be used for > identification? (though I guess you'd then have to distinguish them > from RefParams, but perhaps you have some ideas about that). I think that your alternative only holds true if [reference properties] are not considered by the client side for metadata comparison purposes. If it were not the case, then [reference properties] would be identifying this metadata about the endpoint. If we agree on this, then I think that we are saying [reference properties]' use is essentially similar to [reference parameters]', and that they are basically the same. Are we? Cheers, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Monday, 17 January 2005 16:14:04 UTC