[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: i119: EPR comparisons overly restrictive
I don’t have any religious objection to defining EPR
comparison mechanisms in specific circumstances (as WS-Addressing allows), but
in this case I fail to see why defining such a mechanism is a good thing. In
fact it seems harmful. 1) Piggybacking is an optimization, although an important
one. Failure to correctly determine that two EPRs are equivalent for the
purposes of piggybacking eliminates the possibility to benefit from the optimization.
The nature of the optimization is in reducing the number of messages sent on
the wire. 2) EPR comparison is tricky: a) URI comparison is notoriously difficult, unless the URI
is simply an identifier (e.g. namespace URI) and not primarily intended to be
dereferenced, in which case simple string comparison suffices. I don't believe
this will suffice for [address] property values. The current reference to 2396
is confusing and inadequate to describe how URIs are to be compared. See
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt section 5 for a more thoughtful (and
applicable) explanation of why there isn't a single right mechanism. b) Comparing canonicalized representations of reference
parameters is also difficult. There might be a broad set of allowable
manipulations to reference parameters that result in false positives, e.g.
annotating a ref param with an extension attribute (even WS-A does that). 3) Despite the choices made above, both components of the
proposed EPR comparison can result in false negatives. Trading off complexity
of the comparison algorithm versus the amount of optimization is a choice that
should be left to implementations. a) Canonicalization and full IRI normalization are fairly
expensive. Some implementations may prefer a simpler mechanism, with
correspondingly higher false negative rates. b) Network messaging is fairly expensive. An
implementation wishing to expend extra computational resources to minimize the
network traffic should be free to implement as comprehensive a comparison
mechanism as they like. A standardized EPR comparison mechanism writes into the
standard optimization choices that should be left to implementers, and would
force some implementations to become needlessly (from their perspective)
complex, and others to dumb-down and miss opportunities for better
optimizations. Some seem to fear incorrectly piggybacking messages not
destined to the message recipient, which is again an implementation issue (a
bug) which the market will easily sort out. [ Jonathan
Marsh ][ jmarsh@microsoft.com ][ http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes ] |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]