Let me try to argue one more time about NOT including the resilient reference spec in the ws-naming. First of all, this resilient reference (RR) is not dependent on any naming scheme; not on any notion of what an identity is, may be or smells like: no name is "visible" to the consumer of the RR's EPR as all is hidden inside of that EPR. The interface has no input message parameter, is extremely simple and easy to implement - the code that would deal with those RRs would be fairly straightforward and would provide clients with that extra stability that will allow them to connect with those resources that may move, or may listen on other ports, or bound to a different protocol, whatever... In other words, it is a thing or rare beauty and an abstraction you don't find often. Now the cons of adding this to the ws-naming are: * all naming discussions that I've been part of get bugged down in religious discussions about what names are, what identities are, whether we need them, what their formats are or should be or should not be, whether we should use URIs or should not, how many naming levels we need, what interfaces we will have for resolutions and what parameters will be passed - none of this is trivial and it will take time for all to agree ... and it is very possible that not all will agree... * ...and the most important thing is that there will also be the notion of "ws-naming" compliance that is needed for interoperability, which brings up another complicated discussion of what subset of ws-naming needs a MUST or a SHOULD... Note that the RRs are very useful stand-alone, without any of the additional naming features, bells and whistles. So in order to keep the RRs save and allow for adoption of RRs, we would then need a ws-naming "level-0 compliance" that would allow implementers to adopt the RRs without the rest of ws-naming. Higher level compliances would then deal with the actual use of names, naming conventions and such. That last observation could also lead to a decision to split the charter of ws-naming in two. The first part would deal with RRs only and could most probably be decided quickly with a separate, very short spec, while the second part of the charter would deal with the more complicated matter that involves the visible names. I can imagine that MS would be very much in favor of such a pragmatic approach. -Frank. PS. Please note that I am very interested in ws-naming and truly hope that useful things will come out of it, but for the reasons stated I would like to save this little RR-gem from unnecessary delays and adoption hurdles such that it could actually be deployed. Frank Siebenlist wrote:
I've been reading the minutes and was wondering if anything was decided about those Resilient References.
Personally I hope it is still in the BP as it seems independent/stays-clear of any of the naming issues.
In other words, this seems low hanging fruit and moving it in the naming profile could delay adoption (unless anyone can tell me that all the naming will be resolved next week ;-) ).
-Frank.
Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
Hi all,
Mark and Andreas upload F2F minutes to GridForge. Please have a look and approve them tomorrow.
They are now online:
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-20050524/e...
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-20050523/e...
Thanks Mark and Andreas for your excellent minutes! ---- Hiro Kishimoto
-- Frank Siebenlist franks@mcs.anl.gov The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory