[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [wsrp-wsia]=?utf-8?B?UkU6IFt3c3JwLXdzaWFdW0kjMTA2XSBQcm9wb3NlZCByZXNvbHV0?==?utf-8?B?aW9uOiBVbmlxdWVuZXNzIG9mIEVudGl0eSBIYW5kbGVz?=
Rich, There is no contradiction. The contradiction is in the name "registrationHandle" which is a handle which _must_ exist without Let's look at it from the Entity Management interface POV. Somwehere buried in that interface is the "registrationHandle". Now this handle _must_ have meaning _without_ any need for a registration, so in essence it can't be called "registrationHandle". That is why I proposed renaming it. Renaming it will do the job. The question is to what? I agree that "consumerHandle" is confusing for the reasons you pointed out. How about "relationshipHandle"? "relationshipHandle" works terminology-wise: "a registration creates a relationship"; and: "the scope of every handle is the scope of the relationship, whether determined out of band or in-band". Gil -----Original Message----- From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com] Sent: Mon, October 28, 2002 15:04 To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [wsrp-wsia] RE: [wsrp-wsia][I#106] Proposed resolution: Uniqueness of Entity Handles People found it confusing to have this named consumerHandle as a Consumer MAY have several of them with any one particular Producer. You have a contradiction between reminding us that registration is optional and desiring this to be scoped to a registrationHandle (which is the current statement). I could see adding a parenthetical statement extending this uniqueness to the Producer scope for those Producer's not requiring Consumers to register (either in-band or out-of-band). Gil Tayar <Gil.Tayar@webcol To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org lage.com> cc: Subject: [wsrp-wsia] RE: [wsrp-wsia][I#106] Proposed resolution: 10/27/2002 06:50 Uniqueness of Entity Handles AM 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> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC