RE: Revised Asynch Binding

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.


Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 09:04:04 UTC