RE: RE: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm relatedto use of extended anonymous uri

[Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

These are some interesting points, but don't they apply equally to the URI as well? Shouldn't the URI be treated as no less opaque? As it is the server has to recognize and deconstruct the URI in order to understand that not only is the client identifying a new queue to poll for messages but also the backchannel required to send those messages on. Doesn't that mean that the RM anon URI identifies two resources rather than one? Is that legal?

-----Original Message-----
From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:37 PM
To: Paul Fremantle; Doug Davis
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related to use of extended anonymous uri

The origins of this go back to a struggle in WS-Addressing between "reference parameters" and "reference properties". Reference parameters are supposed to be opaque to everyone except the minter of the EPR. The proto-usecase is a service consumer disambiguating callback operations by placing unique parameters in its ReplyTo EPRs. Using reference parameters to communicate identity information from the service consumer to the service provider (which is what this idea entails) basically turns them into "reference properties". The problem with reference properties is that there is *no* such thing (the WS-Addressing WG said so).

It's ironic that the WS-Addressing WG first said "there is no such thing as reference properties" then turns around and says "maybe you should solve this problem using reference properties".

- gp

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:32 AM
> To: Doug Davis
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm
> related to use of extended anonymous uri
>
> Doug
>
> > - rather than looking at the bigger issue of how a new URI
> defined by
> > some specification can compose with WSA's wsaw:Anonymous
> URI, the WSA
> > WG kept wanting to reexamine whether or not RM's solution was the
> > right choice.  For example, could WSA's anon+ref-p's be
> used instead.
> Didn't we discuss this option (anon+refps)? Can you remind me why we
> didn't go for it?
>
> Paul
>
>
>