- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:48:45 +0100
- To: <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Ugo wrote: > Even if we are currently only talking in abstract terms about > the capabilities needed to support asynchronous messaging (since > we cannot refer to a concrete established standard), I suggest that > we explicitly mention in our wording both the concept of addressing > and the concept of correlation/reference, given the fact that they > are both essential components of asynchronous messaging. +1 to explaining the concepts separately > If the industry settles on WS-Addressing and/or WS-MD, all the > better: both concepts are already supported in those two specs. you said earlier: addressing and correlation are 'orthogonal'. Whilst i'd agree in principle, in practice i'm finding it hard to imagine employing one without the other. i'd like to hear a use-case for a service which has one mechanism for addressing and a different method for message correlation. at the very least i think the default for a separate correlation feature (if we define one) should be the addressing feature. Paul
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 09:04:04 UTC