- From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 01:25:01 -0400
- To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- CC: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Anish Karmarkar wrote: > David Hull wrote: >> I know from one source that a given server understands WS-Addressing >> and can handle non-anonymous response endpoints. Furthermore, this >> source tells us that said endpoints must have either HTTP or Jabber >> destinations. (for concreteness, you might think of this as a >> default behavior for a site) >> >> From another source, we learn that this same server's non-anonymous >> response endpoints must have either Jabber or Mailto destinations. >> (and this might be further description of the particular server) >> >> Combining the information from these sources, we conclude that said >> non-anonymous endpoints must have Mailto destinations. >> > > I assume you mean 'must have Jabber destinations.' Yes. My mistake. Thanks. > >> How do we express all this in WSP? In particular, can we use policy >> intersection to combine the information from the two sources and get >> the expected result. >> > > IIUC, that is exactly what policy intersection is meant to do. > Instead of getting information about the same server from two > different sources, the more common example is intersection of policies > at the service-side with that of the client-side. > >> Variant: Instead of "must have" the sources tell us that the EPRs >> "may have" the given kind of destination. The combined information >> is thus that the destinations may be HTTP, Jabber /or/ mailto. >> >> Further variants: It seems reasonable for sources of information to >> be able to say things like "must not have ...", or for one source to >> say "must have HTTP or Jabber" and another to say "must not have >> jabber". > > Policy does not have a not operation, so I don't how this use case > could be satisfied by the framework. Policy experts? > > -Anish > --
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 05:25:17 UTC