On 1/10/07, Glynn, Eoghan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Essentially we took a view on how to plug a hole in the WS-RM spec. We did this in a way that other RM implementors (and contributors to the WS-RX spec) also had in mind. This approach happens to go against the chapter and verse of the WS-I Basic Profile (R2714), but it has been argued that BP was in error on this point. *snip*
And they ultimately decided against including such a feature inside the spec. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/14147/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i012 That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't useful though. I've done some more in depth poking around and it appears other people are doing it, so I believe it is a justified feature. Also I've done some more research into how other frameworks do this and have some findings, which I'll bring up in the original identification thread.
I don't think it would be a good idea to support a hodge-podge of WS-RM 1.0 and 1.1, for a number of reasons ... the 1.1 namespaces are all different, 1.1 is based on a different version of WS-A, and 1.1 removes some features we support (e.g. the LastMessage marker). So I think we'd be much better off waiting for 1.1 to be finalized, then going for it in one fell swoop.
Shouldn't we be able to support both versions eventually? - Dan -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
