OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uddi-spec message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Groups - WS-Addressing and UDDI - a brief note (WSA_UDDI.htm) uploaded

Re: the proposed modeling, I'd prefer an approach that leverages the entityKeyValues as the means to identify from the minter's catBag the services it mints for. This way, we avoid assumption that the minter is directly bound to the service it mints for - i.e. it mints for anyone.
Using this approach, a service (owner) can also find its associated minter by looking up a service which is categorized with the key of the minted service


Things do get a little complicated if the minter requires some information. It is possible to have a minter which takes no parameters, and simply returns an EPR, but it is also possible to have a minter which requires parameters. Imagine, for example, the minter of EPRs for a shopping web service which takes one or more parameters identifying an existing customer account. Now we need access to the WSDL for the minter (although it could be argued that we already needed WSDL even for the parameterless minter). We might deal with this using two binding templates under the one service: one binding template which describes the minter, and a second which describes the shopping web service, but points to the minter. The only problem with this is that we normally use the accessPoint field for both the WSDL file address (wsdlDeployment useType) and for the binding template key (bindingTemplate useType) - we cannot do both. Perhaps we should get around this by using the accessPoint for the WSDL of the shopping web service, and add a keyed reference to the category bag that has the minter's binding template key as its value - this means that we can avoid having to add a new useType. The drawback of this (apart from it being something of a kludge!) is that the category bag shouldn't really contain such a keyed reference, because such a keyed reference is more of an identifier than a category. Still, we haven't let that stop us before.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tony.Rogers@ca.com [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 00:49
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [uddi-spec] Groups - WS-Addressing and UDDI - a brief note (WSA_UDDI.htm) uploaded

I have written an informal description of my thoughts on the question of reconciling WS-Addressing and UDDI. These thoughts may or may not prove illuminating, but will form a starting point for discussion on the next telephone conference (18 October).

Shouldn't take long to read - it's barely a page.

Comments on the list, please.

 -- Mr Tony Rogers

The document named WS-Addressing and UDDI - a brief note (WSA_UDDI.htm) has been submitted by Mr Tony Rogers to the OASIS UDDI Specification TC document repository.

Document Description:
This note addresses the question of reconciling UDDI and WS-Addressing (which is rapidly approaching Recommendation status in W3C).

View Document Details:

Download Document: 

PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email application may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.

-OASIS Open Administration

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]