RE: [bt-spec] URI issue subquestion #2

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

OK, I agree this is the crunch question.  All the other stuff, about
complexity and maintaining the same functionality, derives from it.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark_little@hp.com]
> Sent: 02 February 2002 11:48
> To: Peter Furniss; BT - spec
> Cc: Jim Webber
> Subject: Re: [bt-spec] URI issue subquestion #2
>
>
> > > Do we think that entity migration necessitates retaining the same name
> at
> > > each endpoint address? (For now let's ignore the issues raised by
> allowing
> > > name change and just concentrate on whether or not, in principle,
> > > this is a
> > > good idea.)
> > >
> > > Our response would be yes.
> >
> > But I thought you were arguing that you wanted to change the name.
>
> Correct - a cut and paste error. The answer should have been "no". Honest!
> ;-)
>
> > Now you
> > say you think migration recessitates retaining the same name at each
> > endpoint address.  But your parenthesis seems to go the other way.
>
> See above.
>
> > We believe a migrating entity should have a name which is invariant over
> all
> > its migrations.
> >
> > We believe it is a bad idea to allow an entity to change its name.
>
> And this is where we differ. Rather than discuss "what ifs" and
> "why for's"
> beyond this point, I would suggest we vote on this as a committee and then
> move on (wherever that takes us). Sounds reasonable to me, but then I did
> suggest it ;-)
>
> Mark.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Dr. Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer,
> Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs
> Email: mark_little@hp.com
> Phone: +44 191 2606216
> Fax  : +44 191 2606250
>
>
>
>
>