Skip to main content

Notice: This Wiki is now read only and edits are no longer possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.

Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "ContextId"

 
Line 4: Line 4:
 
* A given ContextRef may be used against multiple [[Context Provider|Context Providers]] to produce the same [[Context]] (although different IContext instances).
 
* A given ContextRef may be used against multiple [[Context Provider|Context Providers]] to produce the same [[Context]] (although different IContext instances).
 
* A ContextRef may be an XRI
 
* A ContextRef may be an XRI
 +
  
 
==Examples==
 
==Examples==
 
# http://www.fabrikam123.example/4f544/ldap347/HR/employees --an LDAP employee directory
 
# http://www.fabrikam123.example/4f544/ldap347/HR/employees --an LDAP employee directory
 
# proprietary-scheme-a://contactlist  -- user's contact list stored as tab-delimited file
 
# proprietary-scheme-a://contactlist  -- user's contact list stored as tab-delimited file
 +
 +
 +
==Open issues==
 +
* Since providers are ultimately the generators/assigners of new ContextRefs should we allow them to assign their own schemes if they use proprietary technology (as in "proprietary-scheme-a" in #2 above)?
 +
* Do we assume all URIs that use the HTTP scheme are resolvable? (URLs)
 +
* Beyond resolvable, should we require as Tony has suggested that all HTTP-scheme URIs are also WS-Addressing endpoint references? (This would solve the problem of how a provider could get the policy and other metadata to help it try to open and access the context data)
 +
*Do we need a method in IdAS to test that two given ContextRefs actually resolve to the same [[Context]]?

Revision as of 10:25, 4 September 2006

A ContextRef is a URI that identifies a Context.


Examples

  1. http://www.fabrikam123.example/4f544/ldap347/HR/employees --an LDAP employee directory
  2. proprietary-scheme-a://contactlist -- user's contact list stored as tab-delimited file


Open issues

  • Since providers are ultimately the generators/assigners of new ContextRefs should we allow them to assign their own schemes if they use proprietary technology (as in "proprietary-scheme-a" in #2 above)?
  • Do we assume all URIs that use the HTTP scheme are resolvable? (URLs)
  • Beyond resolvable, should we require as Tony has suggested that all HTTP-scheme URIs are also WS-Addressing endpoint references? (This would solve the problem of how a provider could get the policy and other metadata to help it try to open and access the context data)
  • Do we need a method in IdAS to test that two given ContextRefs actually resolve to the same Context?

Back to the top