[wsrp-wsia]=?utf-8?B?UkU6IFt3c3JwLXdzaWFdW0kjMTA2XSBQcm9wb3NlZCByZXNvbHV0?==?utf-8?B?aW9uOiBVbmlxdWVuZXNzIG9mIEVudGl0eSBIYW5kbGVz?=

[=?utf-8?B?R2lsIFRheWFy?= <Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com>]

Rich,

I believe we should not define entityHandle to be scoped to something that
is optional. What happens if no registration was done? I believe this should
be scoped to "registrationHandle".

Actually, to go even further, I would say that registrationHandle should be
just named "consumerHandle", or maybe "consumerId" to denote its
persistence, because it may not even have created through a registration
process.


-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Tayar [mailto:Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com]
Sent: Sun, October 27, 2002 13:43
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp-wsia][I#106] Proposed resolution: Uniqueness of Entity
Handles


Issue:  106
Title:  Uniqueness of Entity Handles
Resolution Date: 10-Nov-2002
Status: Tentative resolve
Proposed Resolution: Draft v0.81 (small grammar update) describes an
entityHandle in section 7.1.4 as "An opaque and invariant handle, unique
within the context of the Consumer’s registration, which the Producer is
supplying for use on future invocations targeted at the new entity."



----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>