- From: Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 05:49:14 +0100
- To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Hello addressers, Long time, no write from me. But I've been reading plenty :-) OK, perhaps I am being a little naïve here, but assuming we have a messageID somewhere and it is made painfully obivious that such messages should uniquely identify a message, why does the WG need to concern itself with the use of that ID? I mean a message ID is useful yes, but it's stretching the remit of _addressing_ to put it in (not that I would violently object because it is clearly useful), but to then start pushing more and more into the spec to accommodate what should be other mutually independent, composable specs seems very wrong. So why not allow all "WS-Addressed" messages to contain a was:messageID. In fact why not mandate it just for good measure. But let's leave its use (including whether something is a *sigh* "request" or "response" or for that matter something altogether more sophisticated than *cough* RPC). Workflows are just so not anything to do with addressing. If you want to do workflows then fine - BPEL and SSDL are useful ways of describing them. Let's not make WS-Addressing the unification point/dumping ground for the rest of the WS-* specs. Jim -- http://jim.webber.name
Received on Friday, 17 June 2005 04:49:37 UTC