Re: Issue i020, subissue 3 proposal

In light of the removal of the terms 'logical address' and 'physical 
address' from the Core spec, I would like to modify the previous 
proposal by removing the sentences with those terms in them. The 
modified proposal is:

1) When the EPR minter includes a [selected interface], and/or [service 
endpoint] then the EPR is considered to be specific to the [selected 
interface] and/or [service endpoint]

2) When an EPR contains [service endpoint] with a QName identifying the 
service element and an NCName identifying wsdl11:port/wsdl20:endpoint, 
then the information specified in the wsdl11:port/wsdl20:endpoint is 
used to send messages to the endpoint specified by the EPR. This address 
may or may not be the same as the one in the [address] property.

3) When an EPR contains [service interface] property with a QName 
identifying the service element but an NCName identifying 
wsdl11:port/wsdl20:endpoint is *not* specified, then the information 
specified in any of the wsdl11:port/wsdl20:endpoint that implements the 
[selected interface], if present, is used to send messages to the 
endpoint specified by the EPR.

Comments?

-Anish
--

Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> 
> Per my AI, Paco and I discussed subissue 3 of issue i020 last night and 
> a proposed resolution for it. Here is what we would like to propose to 
> resolve subissue 3.
> 
> [[ Please note that Paco and I have only generally agreed on what the 
> resolution should be; he has not seen the wordings in this email and 
> therefore it should not be assumed that he has agreed to the wordings ]]
> 
> 
> Subissue iii [1] is:
> 
> -----
> An EPR allows one to include (optionally) a service endpoint/port.
> If such an endpoint/port is included in an EPR, what is the relationship
> between the value of the [address] property and the URI value in the
> [service-port] property? We have said that the [address] property is a
> logical address and not necessarily the physical endpoint where messages
> can be sent and how the mapping between logical to physical takes place
> is an extensibility point. Is that true if a service QName is present in
> the EPR. I.e., should our spec say that if the service QName is present
> then the physical address is what is specified by the wsdl port.
> -----
> 
> Proposed resolution:
> 
> 1) When the EPR minter includes a [selected interface], and/or [service 
> endpoint] then the EPR is considered to be specific to the [selected 
> interface] and/or [service endpoint]
> 
> 2) When an EPR contains [service endpoint] with a QName identifying the 
> service element and an NCName identifying port/endpoint, then the 
> information specified in the port/endpoint (including the network 
> endpoint address) is used to send messages to the endpoint 
> identified^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h specified by the EPR. I.e., the physical 
> address/binding used to contact the endpoint is the one specified in the 
> port/endpoint. This physical address may be the same as the one in the 
> [address] property. If it is different from the value in the [address] 
> property then the [address] property is considered to be a logical address.
> 
> 3) When an EPR contains [service interface] property with a QName 
> identifying the service element but an NCName identifying port/endpoint 
> is *not* specified, then the information specified in any of the 
> port/endpoint (including the network endpoint address) that implements 
> the [selected interface], if present, is used to send messages to the 
> endpoint specified by the EPR. I.e., the physical address/binding used 
> to contact the endpoint is the one specified in any of the 
> port/endpoint. The [address] property is considered to be a logical 
> address if there are more than one ports/endpoints defined in the 
> service element.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> -Anish
> -- 
> 
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0101.html
> 
>

Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 18:10:05 UTC