Re: [issue 6432] - a modest proposal

Yves,
  Actually, what you describe is what we have now.  We have two different 
ways of
expressing how/where to send a message(s) within the same spec.  We're 
moving
towards one way.  And, in doing so we're moving towards having it be 
consistent with
all other WS-* specs.  Code reuse!  No specialized "message sending" code 
needed
just for WS-Eventing.  That's even better for interoperability.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> 
04/10/2009 03:33 PM

To
Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com>
cc
David Snelling <David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com>, Gilbert Pilz 
<gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>, Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, Doug 
Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" 
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Subject
Re: [issue 6432] - a modest proposal






On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Bob Freund wrote:

> Would it be too bold to suggest folks consider to move NotifyTo to be a 
child 
> of Subscribe?
> that way, then Delivery could be used (as an xs:Any) extension point, 
used by 
> other specifications to mean anything they want at at cost of merely 
setting 
> a SOAP mU header on delivery to get the fault behavior.  Of course, the 
fault 
> would change from modeNotRecognized to SOAP mU Fault, but the other 
stuff 
> would still work.
> Is that half-way-ish approach that folks could consider?

I am wondering if the outcome of this is to allow two incompatible ways of 

doing roughly the same thing in the same specification; and my question 
is... what is the story for interoperability?

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves