- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:44:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Doug Davis wrote:
> 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.
I am not talking about the quality of the solutions here. My point was
that we currently have solution 'A' in Eventing, and the possibility of
using solution 'B' using a mU trick. You propose to add in Eventing
solution 'B' but keep 'A' and just add a mU to 'A'.
Regardless of what are 'A' and 'B', I see absolutely no gain wrt
interoperability. We still have two different solutions that won't
interoperate.
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 09:44:40 UTC