RE: [issue 6432] - a modest proposal

Hey Geoff - welcome back!

1) EPR (e.g. EndTo)  and   2) Delivery+Mode+EPR(e.g NotifyTo)

One way = EPR - like every other WS-* spec that needs to send a message.

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.



Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com> 
04/10/2009 07:33 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" 
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: [issue 6432] - a modest proposal






Hi Doug,
OK, help me out here, please.
 
Ø  We have two different ways of expressing how/where to send a message(s) 
within the same spec. 
We believe there is only one specific mechanism.  Can you please 
articulate the two ways that the spec currently has for expressing 
how/where to send a message?
 
Ø  We're moving towards one way.
Can you please articulate the one way that you are trying to move us 
towards?
 
--Geoff
 
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
[mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 12:50 PM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: 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