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

Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:02:17 -0700
Message-Id: <C38AF098-A7B1-4D74-8F5C-525445497C22@bea.com>
Cc: WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
To: "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>


If you'd like a definitive answer to this by the WG, I'd recommend  
you raise a CR issue, as outlined in the status section of either  


On 15/10/2005, at 4:26 PM, Conor P. Cahill wrote:

> 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

Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems

BEAWorld 2005: coming to a city near you.  Everything you need for SOA and enterprise infrastructure success.

Register now at http://www.bea.com/4beaworld

London 11-12 Oct| Paris13-14 Oct| Prague18-19 Oct |Tokyo 25-26 Oct| Beijing 7-8 Dec
Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 19:03:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:29 UTC