No that's not the case. Peter and I had a
discussion about this where I agreed with him that URI and EPR aren't necessary
and I said I thought we'd got rid of the URI at New Orleans. However, as I later
reported in the mailing list, it turns out that wasn't the case, i.e.,
they're both still there. Hopefully this will be resolved at the f2f this
week.
Mark.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 2:46
PM
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Context "by value"
versus "by reference"
Hi Jim,
I read somewhere in this mailing list that in
the latest version the URL dereferencing was dropped in favor of the service
reference. It's just not in the text and schema
(yet)...
Guy
On dinsdag, jul 13, 2004, at 15:31 Europe/Brussels,
Jim Webber wrote:
Hi guys,
As regards the mechanics of "by reference"
contexts (and deliberating sidestepping the debate as to its perceived
value), at the moment the access mechanism for "dereferencing" a context
is underspecified.
Would be it be possible to define a simple message
exchange with the host context service along the lines
of:
<get-context> <context-id>a:b:c:d</context-id> </get-context>
Which
presumably would elicit one of the
responses:
<context> ... </context>
Or
<no-such-context-fault> ... </no-such-context-fault>
Or
an out-of-band fault (eg not authorised) as appropriate.
This
suggestion addresses access at the message level, rather than the current
scheme which seems to imply following a URI (usually a
URL).
Jim -- http://jim.webber.name
Dr. Guy Pardon
( guy@atomikos.com ) Atomikos: Your Partner for Reliable eBusiness
Coordination http://www.atomikos.com/
The information in this email
is confidential and only meant for the addressee(s). The content of this email
is informal and will not be legally binding for
Atomikos. /fontfamily>
|