Re: [ws-caf] issue 84

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

Title: Message

I thought you were hinting at the problem that we currently overload the context identifier field so that you can't tell from:

 

<wsctx>

    <context-identifier>foo</context-identifier>

</wsctx>

 

whether foo is a rereferencable URI or just a basic context without any augmentation. Seems to me that is an issue and we either add an attribute to context-identifier or have a different element.

 

Mark.

 

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
 
www.arjuna.com

----- Original Message -----

From: Furniss, Peter

To: Mark Little ; ws-caf

Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:46 PM

Subject: RE: [ws-caf] issue 84

When I raised the issue I was thinking primarily that it must be stated in the definition of a field, rather than that it need be in the schema as well. I've no objection as such to having it in the syntax, but I'm not sure it's needed.

 

 

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
Sent: 14 April 2004 14:25
To: ws-caf
Subject: [ws-caf] issue 84

http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=84

 

This is about making it explicit whether a URI is for referencing or not. I agree it needs to be clarified and favour an optional attribute like:

 

<wsctx>

    <context-uri reference=true/>

</wsctx>

 

I think the majority of uses for URI in the raw context are for unique identification purposes, so it's probable that this is only actually required on the context-id field. The default IMO would be false.

 

Again, I want to set up a Kavi ballot for this in a day or so, to try to clear as many of the "minor" issues as possible before the f2f.

 

Mark.