wsn message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsn] Value/weight added by WSRF
- From: "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>
- To: "'Steve Graham'" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>, David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:30:47 +0200
Title: Message
>> So, regardless of whether we specify
the semantics explicitly in BaseN as separate operations or as
constraints/restrictions on the
>> ResourceProperties, the work is
pretty much the same. My position is that I would prefer to reuse WSRF for
as much of this as makes sense.
Steve/David,
Would
it make sense to scope the relationship to WSRF by
specifying exactly what particular parts of WSRF are used by
which particular WS-Notification operations. This would make the
specification firm and exact in the sense that we will then not have to deal
with the numerous possibilities enabled by WSRF, while allowing the intended
reuse of WSRF.
The
changes to the specification will be such as -- remove the blanket
statements such as "MUST also support the required
message exchanges defined in the WS-ResourceProperties specification and MAY
support the optional message exchanges defined in the WS-ResourceProperties
specification." and define the
dependency only within the contexts where WSRF is actually
used.
Thanks,
Sanjay
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]