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

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

> >It is important to distinguish between a service address and a service
> >instance identifier. The first is similar to for instance IP addresses
and
> >port number, the second to CORBA IOR. I don't see anything against "SOA
> >principles" in the EndpointReference concept as it is not just a service
> >address.
> >
> I guess it depends if you see equivalence between SOA and distributed
> objects; I can say unequivocally that I do not. In the web services
> model, we talk about services and their capabilities, not object
> pointers. But that's probably a topic for another TC...

Yes, I think it's called WS-RF ;-)

Mark.

>
>
> > I agree that it would be useful to use WS-Context for mapping
> >EndpointReferenceProperties into SOAP headers as they identify the
execution
> >context of the endpoint.
> >
> >Jan
> >
> >
> >  _____
> >
> >From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> >Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 11:25 AM
> >To: Greg Pavlik; Furniss, Peter
> >Cc: Green, Alastair J.; ws-caf
> >Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF
> >
> >
> >+1.
> >
> >I'd also like to suggest that context embedded in an address isn't really
the
> >right way to go. Despite the fact that we (Jim, Savas, myself and others)
have
> >suggested that ReferenceProperties *could* use WS-Context, that doesn't
> >necessarily mean that it's the best way of tackling the problem.
Suggesting
> >that context within an address is the right model is ignoring SOA
principles.
> >
> >Mark.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Greg  <mailto:greg.pavlik@oracle.com> Pavlik
> >To: Furniss, Peter <mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>
> >Cc: Green, Alastair J. <mailto:Alastair.Green@choreology.com>  ; Mark
> ><mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com> Little ; ws-caf
> ><mailto:ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:56 PM
> >Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF
> >
> >
> >
> >Furniss, Peter wrote:
> >
> >
> >Greg,
> >
> >
> >
> ><snip the earlier part of the alastair .. thread>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >A further comment on the IBM/MS product specs: there are in
> >
> >fact three
> >
> >contextualization mechanisms: one in WS-Coordination, one in
> >
> >WS-ReliableMessaging, and one in WS-Addressing. Putting aside
> >
> >WS-Addressing for a moment since it introduces a new model to the web
> >
> >services environment that I don't want to argue about here, let me
> >
> >observe that there is no fundamental distinction between the
> >
> >lifecycle
> >
> >control interface in WS-Coordination and WS-ReliableMessaging. Why
> >
> >shouldn't these be based on a common model? Wouldn't that in fact be
> >
> >simpler and less error prone? From there, it seems a small step to
> >
> >imagine the reliability and coordination/transaction contexts
> >
> >having a
> >
> >common root. I submit that this is in fact a flaw, not a strength, of
> >
> >the specification set; they they are unnecessarily complex due to the
> >
> >failure to deal with common constructs, idioms and patterns as, well,
> >
> >things-in-common.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Well the WS-Coordination and WS-RM both have equivalent of "begin".
> >
> >WS-RM doesn't always use it,
> >
> >and when it is used, it is asked of the eventual receiver. The
> >
> >termination sequences are different, since WS-RM is just stopping, and
> >
> >WS-Coordination will have delegated to a transaction protocol.
> >
> >
> >
> >As contextualization, it is true that a message carrying the relevant
> >
> >headers is "in the context" of those headers, and subject to their
> >
> >implications. But the same is true of more or less any header - that's
> >
> >what they're for. WS-Addressing is particularly interesting because it
> >
> >is essentially "opaque context" - the reference properties don't need to
> >
> >contain any kind of identifier in the ws-context sense at all (it might
> >
> >tell the receiver which database to look in, but since only the receiver
> >
> >knows what they meant, that's fine - it's just a piece of syntactic
> >
> >partitioning of the address)
> >
> >Is it fine? What if it happens to conflict with another header since
there are
> >no restrictions? I'd like to suggest that WS-Addressing would benefit
from a
> >container and that this is generally a problem for contextualization
based
> >solely on headers.
> >
> >
> >
> >. The other two would have an identifier but
> >
> >that's the only thing they share, I think.
> >
> >
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>