Re: WSA From

Whether they contradict them or not is in the eye of the reader - they 
definitely go beyond what WSA says.  So, going beyond what the spec says 
for wsa:From (which is basically nothing) would be no different, IMO.
-Doug




Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 
02/09/2006 04:13 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, Mark Little 
<mark.little@jboss.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, 
public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org, Paul Fremantle <pzfreo@gmail.com>
Subject
Re: WSA From






Are they contradicting the semantics of and requirements placed upon 
those elements by WS-Addressing?

On 2006/02/09, at 1:12 PM, Doug Davis wrote:

>
> Ah, but other WS-* specs are placing wsa:ReplyTo in the message 
> with its own semantics - not
> that different from wsa:From, IMO.
> -Doug
>
>
>
> Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> 02/09/2006 04:08 PM
>
> To
> Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
> cc
> Mark Little <mark.little@jboss.com>, Paul Fremantle 
> <pzfreo@gmail.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject
> Re: WSA From
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ReplyTo, FaultTo and To have more concrete semantics; they actually
> have use cases baked into the WS-Addressing spec family (i.e., they
> all have to accept a certain type of message; the reply, a fault, and
> the original message, respectively). From just floats out there...
>
>
> On 2006/02/09, at 12:23 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>
> > Mark,
> >
> > Isn't that a general problem that exists, not just with wsa:From
> > but with wsa:ReplyTo, wsa:FaultTo, and wsa:To as well?
> >
> > -Anish
> > --
> >
> > Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> Speaking just as me...
> >> It sounds like there are a lot of potential use cases for From.
> >> What's less than clear is whether they're compatible; i.e., if WS-
> >> Foo  says wsa:From should contain a URI that corresponds to the
> >> MAC  address of your ethernet controller, WS-Bar says wsa:From
> >> should  contain a urn:uuid for your service (as we're already
> >> seeing from our  friends from the North, apparently), and WS-Baz
> >> says it should be  your IP address, how do you use these
> >> specifications in a  "composable" fashion?
> >> Of course, From could changed to allow more than one URI, but
> >> then  how do you pick which one is the appropriate one? E.g., if I
> >> see  three http:// URIs in there, which one is MY From?
> >> Smashing a bunch of different use cases into one vague semantic
> >> bucket isn't interoperable; it's asking for trouble. I see no
> >> reason  why these different cases can't specify different headers
> >> to contain  the information they need; yes, WS-Addressing is one
> >> boat that they  could hop onto on the way to standards paradise,
> >> but there are others.
> >> Cheers,
> >> On 2006/02/08, at 4:11 AM, Mark Little wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> I don't see what it adds in removing it, but I can see what it
> >>> removes by removing it.
> >>>
> >>> Mark.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Paul Fremantle wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to write in support of wsa:From.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) A lot of mediation (SLA provision, security checks, etc) is
> >>>> based on who/where the message came from. From is useful for 
> that.
> >>>> 2) WSA makes WS-* much more "peer-to-peer". But knowing where a
> >>>> message comes from is a key part of that.
> >>>>
> >>>> For example we in Apache Synapse are allowing users to do
> >>>> custom  routing based on wsa:From.
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Paul Fremantle
> >>>> VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> >>>>
> >>>> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> >>>> paul@wso2.com <mailto:paul@wso2.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com <http://
> >>>> www.wso2.com>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
> >
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/