Re: FW: [ws-caf] ACTION for optimization of registration

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

FYI

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i048

Mark.

Mark Little wrote:

> [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