RE: Clarification for WS-RX

+1!

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 02/22/2006 01:34:13 PM:

> 
> It seems to me we are just making a big deal out of an issue which is
> easily fixed here in WS-A. 
> 
> We separate the problem into two separate issues: 
> 
> --define the anonymous URI's semantics 
> --define the WS-A MAP semantics for reply endpoint/fault endpoint with
> anonymous value. This wg can provide specific semantics for these two
> MAPs we define which builds on anonymous URI and their relationship to
> MEPs.
> 
> Nothing more, nothing less. 
> 
> Katy's proposal for CR23 [1] is definitely in the right direction and we
> should fix this problem in this manner, by careful decomposition of the
> problem. 
> 
> Intermixing the solution of these two issues and thinking in a very
> restricted sense for the semantics of anonymous is not a good approach.
> As a matter of fact, fusing the two solutions breaks composition for
> other groups. The semantics of Anonymous should not be restricted to
> specific MEPs, but can be further used to define the semantics in
> certain MEPs and WS-A MAPs. Fusing the two prevents the composition, IMO
> and I am weary of the tendency here. 
> 
> WS-RX can define the semantics of acksTo (which it owns) based on the
> anonymous URI only. It can crisply define how acksTo can be used in its
> own context and in conjunction with its own protocol exchanges/when it
> is allowed, etc. 
> 
> It seems to me that resolving CR23 in this manner, we do not hinder any
> composition, not the other way around. 
> 
> --umit
> 
> 
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Feb/0167.ht
> ml
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> > David Orchard
> > Sent: Wednesday, Feb 22, 2006 8:27 AM
> > To: paul.downey@bt.com; dmh@tibco.com; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Clarification for WS-RX
> > 
> > 
> > OTOH, the last thing I want is some profile to crop up that 
> > "fixes" for
> > WS-RX how "broken" WS-A is.  At the end of the day, the stuff is
> > supposed to be composable, etc.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Dave 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> > > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> > > paul.downey@bt.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:09 AM
> > > To: dmh@tibco.com; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: Clarification for WS-RX
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > I'm a bit loath to send this to the whole WS-RX list, and I think 
> > > > there are enough WS-RXperts here to answer, so ...
> > > 
> > > but this is Web service addressing and I'm bothered that we 
> > > do seem to keep descending into glorious detail on how WS-RX 
> > > may or may not work, rather than answering tractable LC and 
> > > CR comments from that WG wrt our specifications.
> > > 
> > > Paul
> > > 
> > > 
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > _________
> > Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, 
> > may contain
> > information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and 
> > affiliated
> > entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary, 
> > copyrighted  and/or
> > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the 
> > individual
> > or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended 
> > recipient,
> > and have received this message in error, please immediately 
> > return this
> > by email and then delete it.
> > 
> > 
>