W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > March 2005


From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:51:04 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A506E408A2@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Sorry, I must have lost track of your earlier proposed wording :-).
I'll withdraw mine in deference to yours.



From: David Hull [mailto:dmh@tibco.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 8:09 AM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: MAPs and SOAP


I'd be willing to clarify the use of the extensibility point for
advanced MEPs, if we can do it in a non-perjorative way.

I believe the text I gave before is non-pejorative and a bit more
complete, in that it mentions needing to define properties in other SOAP
modules, which I believe is a significant point.  I also think it's a
bit more accurate in that it specifically says how you can tell if your
interaction pattern will fit: It's OK if and only if it can get by with
reply and fault endpoints.  That said, I really don't care about the
exact wording as long as the disclaimer hits the pertinent points.  For
reference, here is the text I gave earlier:

Message addressing properties provide references for the endpoints
involved in request/reply interactions and other interactions for which
a reply endpoint and a fault endpoint suffice.  Endpoints required for
more complex interactions must be handled outside this framework by
defining separate abstract properties and where appropriate mapping them
to SOAP properties in some module other than that defined in the
WS-Addressing SOAP binding.

	Here's some proposed text.
	Delete the "any" from the 3rd p of Section 3 as follows:
	"Message addressing properties collectively augment a message
with the
	following abstract properties to support one way, request reply,
	other interaction patterns:"
	Add a paragraph immediately preceding the 3rd p of Section 3 as
	"The set of message addressing properties defined in this
	is sufficient for many simple variations of one-way and
	MEPs.  More advanced MEPs may require additional message
	properties to augment the facilities provided here. "

Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 17:51:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:24 UTC