Hi Hiro, Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
... I think the following email thread is what you looking for.
Thanks but no, I know that email well and believe that Tom shows a good path forward that addresses the requirements that I articulated. Probably it is the email thread that Andrew is looking for, though ;-) It would be good to get some statement of direction whether this is an accepted approach for inclusion in the ws-naming spec or how we could get to such a decision... Regards, Frank.
# To: ogsa-naming-wg@xxxxxxx # Subject: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing WSDL Binding # From: Maguire_Tom@xxxxxxx # Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 12:41:09 -0400 # Cc: tuecke@xxxxxxxxx
So this says to me that the <wsa:address> is essentially equivalent (or at least could be) to an abstract name.
http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-naming-wg/2005/10/msg00000.h...
Hope it helps, ---- Hiro Kishimoto
Frank Siebenlist wrote:
In the past I've advocated that we need an AbstractName equivalent as a service/resource identifier on the wire, i.e. present in the soap message.
During the last conference call it was mentioned that at the ws-naming F2F it was discussed that this was not needed. Could someone explain what the arguments were? What the discussion was about exactly?
(maybe the f2f-minutes would be nice too ... hint, hint ;-) )
Thanks, Frank.
-- Frank Siebenlist franks@mcs.anl.gov The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory