[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: FW: [ws-caf] ACTION for optimization of registration
[Stuff deleted] >Which brings us to another sub-issue that Mark questioned: why do we >need a way of identifying inferiors? > >If the EPR mechanism has no means of communicating an application >identity which can be understood, under some application contract, by >both application elements (client/server, requester/responder or however >you choose to model it), then it is not possible for the second method >of checking to be supported, because the coordinator cannot present to >the terminating application element a comprehensible view of the >identity and number of the necessary inferiors. Note (in this respect) >that a terminating application (the one that says "commit" in an ACID >context) could legitimately exclude, rebuff or ignore unwanted or >non-critical enlistments. > >As I understand WS-Addressing, the reference properties are defined to >be opaque to the receiver: in other words they must be represented as >part of the address in back-communication, so that the publisher of the >address can map the back-message (reply if you like) to an internal >endpoint which "lies beyond" the ostensible transport end-point, but no >reliance or interpretation can legimately be put upon these properties >for application-level correlation. > > > [More stuff deleted] Good point. Yes, your interpretation of ReferenceParameters (ReferenceProperties were dropped a while back [http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i001]) is correct, so although EPRs may be unique, there is no way of actually determining that within the bounds of the protocol. Mark. -- Mark Little Chief Architect Arjuna Technologies Ltd www.arjuna.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]