- From: Conor P. Cahill <concahill@aol.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:26:52 -0400
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- cc: WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote on 10/15/2005, 4:35 PM: > > Conor, > > We discussed this as part of a number of WD issues, including; > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i009 > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i026 While both of these have a somewhat similar feel to them they are not the same issue. I'm not talking about different protocols/ports, nor about multiple eprs. I am simply talking about providing alternative physical destination URIs that are all intepreted as the same logical destination URI so that the client has alternatives should there be a problem using one of them. The intent is that only one logical message is sent to one logical entity while giving the sender some level of optimization/recovery should one of the physical endpoints not be available. I'm simply asking to allow <Address> to be multi-occurance within the EPR whit the definition that all such elements in a single EPR equate to the destination URI of the one logical entity described by the EPR. We need this kind of functionality in dealing with the hundreds of millions of clients that we have in the real world that talk to different instances of the same service, frequenqly depending upon their geographic location, network status, etc. Our work-around is to send multiple EPRs, but I think this is a pretty painful workaround (lots of duplication of data and the client now has to compare the multiple EPRS that they get back to figure out which two are really the same EPR with just a different addresss). Of note: this is *implementation* feedback, not just spec reading feedback. In our implementation we find the need for this (and feel that others, when the get to the point of supporting real world situations will also need this -- not all, but many). Conor
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2005 23:27:18 UTC