RE: [ws-rx] i089 - updated proposal

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

Hey Dave.
  Not sure I follow why the ref-params
become like ref-properties, or at least any more than any other ref-param.
 Since WSA has gone back to having just one kind, don't people need
to assume that to disambiguate EPRs they would need to treat all ref-params
as distinguishing data?  At one point the proposal had a well defined
RM ref-p, which would have made comparing EPRs very easy, but the issue
with that was that people didn't want to have predefined ref-p's and it
felt like we were violating the opacity of EPRs.  I like the idea
of letting the minter of the EPR decide what the ref-p's should look like.
  w.r.t. adding an id to the EPR
- just guessing here since I'm not 100% sure what you're thinking but if
that ID isn't part of the address of a ref-p's then it won't be echoed
back in the message.  If, on the server, we have a gateway machine
that deals with the RM stuff for us and it is just handed these messages,
it won't have the unserialized form of the EPR to examine this new ID.
 But perhaps I should wait for your model...  
thanks,
-Doug

"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>

05/10/2006 10:11 PM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [ws-rx] i089 - updated proposal

HI Doug,
 
My biggest concern with this
proposal is that it effectively converts Reference Parameters into the
defunct Reference Properties, though it does have the nice feature of removing
anon.  I would be in favour of something that either added an id into
the EPR or added ReferenceProperties into the EPR to distinguish between
anon addressed EPRs.
 
I'll post something that shows
that model.
 
Cheers,
Dave

---

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:23 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] i089 - updated proposal
 

I finally got around to making an update to the proposal based on Sanjay's
suggestion of renaming GetMessage to something more descriptive, MakeConnection.
While its simply a syntax change it might help newbies understand that
all we're doing to reestablishing a connection/backchannel.
Marc - when you update the issue list (I think you need to move 96 back
to pending) could you point to this as the latest proposal from us?
thanks 
-Doug