RE: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF

["Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>]

Hey Alastair:

[snip]

I think I see what you're saying - why bother wrapping, say, a WS-LRA
context inside a WS-Context context when you could just put the WS-LRA
context into a SOAP header directly. If that's what you mean then I
think it's a reasonable point.

However, for some of the work I'm doing now, just having a plain vanilla
context is really quite useful.

So: would it be correct of me to split your argument into to points?

1. There is little perceived value in using the context structure to
house other contexts.
2. There is little value in WS-Context.

For the first, the specs (used to) say that higher level contexts
dervied from lower level contexts rather than being bundled inside them.
That might have changed now (editors?) since pretty much no-one gets
substitutionGroups (or so it would seem from the appalling support for
them).

For the second I respectifully disagree. In my work I have an
"application X" context which ties together a bunch of services which
for me comprise "application X".

If I've misunderstood you, I appologise in advance.

Jim
--
http://jim.webber.name