[business-transaction] RE: BTP Address

[Peter Furniss <peter.furniss@choreology.com>]

>
> In all of our conversations and face-to-face meetings, I'm sure we have
> talked about a BTP Address as a URI. However, there's nothing specific in
> the current draft specification.

In general, given the flexible mapping of BTP to bindings, I don't think it
has to be. A specialised (or proprietary) binding to, say, xml direct on
tcp, might have host&port alone as the "binding address", and no requirement
to register a URI namespece for it.

Addresses are tuples: binding-name, binding-address, additional-information,
and the binding name is the unambiguous identifier of what the rest is.

However, it would seem to be an omission in the SOAP binding specification
as to what the binding address is - and in fact in the binding proforma the
nature of the binding address must be specified (the binding name *is*
defined in any proforma-mathing binding spec, and the additional information
is opaque to anything other than the recipient, so its only the binding
address that needs specifying.

For SOAP, I think it has to be a URL doesn't it ? (in the absence of
deployed urn -> url lookup capability)

Peter

------------------------------------------
Peter Furniss
Technical Director, Choreology Ltd
email:  peter.furniss@choreology.com
phone:  +44 20 7670 1679
direct: +44 20 7670 1783
mobile: 07951 536168
13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX