Comments inline.
Simon
ant elder wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 5:22 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
(cut)
I thought that the scenarios I described earlier helped describe the
problem, which boils down to:
domain != node
so domain URI != node URI
trying to make them equal is just wrong, and will break as soon as
there's 2 nodes in a domain.
Ok but in the non-distributed case with just a single standalone node then
domain is the same as node isn't it, so domain uri could be the same as node
uri?
Yes, I think it would be the same in this case. But this case is not
very "interesting" in the broader scheme of things. And to make special
use of the domain URI for this case only seems wrong to me.
The specs don't mention nodes, maybe what we need is to do 1.7.2 for nodes
and have a node base URI, i think that at least would help with all the WS
endpoint problems we keep getting.
This seems a more useful path to follow. I'd like to understand in more
detail what you have in mind. Would services (potentially) be exposed on
two different endpoints (aliases), one with a node URI and another with a
domain URI?
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
