I have to admit that I am confused as to what makes adding an abstract name to an EPR so much of a burden. I know that Andrew and I are talking about something very lightweight (perhaps just generating a GUID when the EPR is generated). So, in the technical sense, it's extra work that needs to be done, but in my mind it's far less honerous then writing good comments for your code and I think everyone would agree that the benefits of doing so far outweight the burden. In this case, AbstractNames give a potentially huge benefit for a line or two of code. Why is this such a big deal? -Mark
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Mark McKeown Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 9:54 AM To: Tom Maguire Cc: Michael Behrens; Dave Berry; Ian Foster; Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-wg@ggf.org; owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org; Tom Maguire Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] BES query
Hi Tom,
If so, then a unique AbstractName is needed in order to accurately resolve EPRs, especially considering the potential service migration.
I think that AbstractName is certainly one approach to solving this problem. Remember that ReferenceParameters are used to provide information to the RECEIVER(wsa:to) to disambiguate the resource for dispatch.
I am confused by this - according to the WS-Addressing working group ReferenceParameters are designed to support stateful interactions (similar to the use of cookies with HTTP) - not to identify resources. They CAN be used to identify resources but this is not best practice according to the working group.
see http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i001 and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Dec/0051
thanks Mark