|
I would be fine with saying that an EPR is constructed by the "provider"
which is close to the implementation and therefore knows where to put what. For
example, if I'm a provider and I use say Axis and I don't want to mess around
with reference properties and I have only one resource to worry about, then I
will *advertize* an EPR which has just <wsa:Address> in it. Now, if I'm a
.NET with WSE provider then I may be able to get the WSA dispatch for free and
therefore I could advertize an EPR which includes <wsa:Address> and
<wsa:ReferenceProperties> in it. So the choice is at the "provider".
The client needs to only know of WSA and how to deal with it in either
case. It does not need to know why the provider did it one way or the
other.
What is it that we can say here except "use WSA"?
What we can do though is to say use only wsa:Address and
wsa:ReferenceProperties for resource disambiguation.
-----Original Message-----
From: fred carter
[mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com]
Sent: Tue 11/16/2004 8:45 PM
To: Sedukhin, Igor S
Cc: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsdm] MUWS: New issue to
consider?
Sedukhin, Igor S wrote:
>Didn't we say in WSRF that
you may use any of the embodiments you like
>
Well, insofar as I
know, we did say that in WSRF. However, WSDM has not
yet updated to
the not-yet-released WSRF spec, so I think we (meaning
WSDM) are (is) still
restricted to WS-Addressing (if that's what you're
asking).
That
said, I guess my question was do we/should we (for, say,
interoperability)
define how our EPR is constructed. Or do we just rely
on the
appropriate magic for obtaining one. I know that's probably what
we
say -- I'm just not terribly comfortable with
it.
>
>
>-- Igor Sedukhin ..
(igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
>-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY
11749
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fred
carter [mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com]
>Sent:
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:23 PM
>To:
wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [wsdm] MUWS: New issue to
consider?
>
>In reading the WS-Management spec the other day, one
thing that sticks
>out as contextually different is that they describe a
normative [I
>think] mapping to WS-Addressing. That is, they make
specific reference
>to where the analogous concept to identity fits into
the WS-Address.
>
>Do we need to map this? That is, to
describe how to identify the
>resource in question in our
WS-Address? I think that this is currently
>missing, and I don't
recall seeing it specifically addressed in WSRF
>(and it couldn't be,
since they don't have an identity capability...).
>
>Seems like we
could say that there must exist a ref prop that's the same
>as the
property in the property sheet in the WS-A. This leaves open
>discovery,
but that's a separate
problem...
>
>Opinions?
>
>/fred
>
>
|