[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [uddi-spec] FW: UDDI's UUIDs issue
More comments from W3C... -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Hugo Haas Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:21 AM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Re: UDDI's UUIDs issue * Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net> [2002-12-04 08:25-0500] > So Joel, are you saying that there is no reason to create a uddi: scheme? > > I don't think that Karsten's explanation really addresses the core issue. > The tModelKey is supposed to be a URI. The current tModelKey is a UUID. > Although it's a unique identifier, it doesn't give you the ability to GET it > using simply the ID. Karsten Januszewski's showed that there is a way to get a tModel using the existing http: scheme. Therefore, there is no need for a uddi: scheme. > I think Paul has proposed that we use an http:// URI rather than invent a > new uddi: scheme to identify a tModel. The point I was making is that you > cannot do an HTTP GET on http://[tmodelname] to retrieve the tModel details. > You have to compose a fairly complicated composed URL (e.g., > http://[server_name]/modelDetails.aspx/[uuid]) as decribed by Karsten below. > > If we create a uddi: scheme, I can see the UDDI TC developing a mechanism > that would allow you to perform a GET on a uddi: URL and retrieve the > resource. Creating a new URI scheme is very costly and should only be a last resort solution. Creating a uddi: scheme as a level of indirection to do an HTTP GET doesn't seem like a last resort solution to me. Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC