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

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

Peter:
 
> > The point is, I want it to be understood and a standard helps that. 
> > Not at the SOAP level where the mechanics of mustUnderstand 
> help, but 
> > by the _people_ building the service. I can get them to support a 
> > standard (hey, they can reuse the work with their other 
> partners) but 
> > I can't get them to use my own ad-hoc structure.
> 
> But you can get them to understand your own ad-hoc overload 
> of the ws-context identifier ?

In this case I don't extend the context. Even if I did, I would expect
the services to understand the standard bits  (which may be as little as
a unique ID) which are still useful.
 
> Do you accept that they will have to implement something you define ?
> You seem to think WS-Context alone will do it, but it has no 
> semantics.

No I do not accept this. What I'm trying to convey is that even the
little bits of information conveyed in a plain WS-Context context are
useful for me. It's not rocket science of course, but the thing that
makes it click into place is that the structure is (or will be)
standardised.

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