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

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

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>