W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > August 2008

Re: NEW ISSUE: is WS-Addressing irrelevant to "SOAP over JMS"?

From: Glen Daniels <glen@wso2.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:05:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4897DFAB.90606@wso2.com>
To: public-soap-jms@w3.org
CC: Jacques.TALBOT@teamlog.com

Hi Jacques, all:

Just to let you know what's up here - the group discussed this thread on 
last week's conference call, and the consensus was that indeed 
WS-Addressing is and should be normatively out-of-scope for this group, 
just as it would be for any other SOAP underlying protocol binding.  The 
quick summary is that protocol bindings are just supposed to provide 1 
or more SOAP MEPs - the WS-Addressing spec then builds upon the SOAP 
MEPs (in a transport-independent manner) in order to achieve 
higher-layer results such as "dual channel" invocation (where the 
response travels along a different SOAP MEP than the request).

We'll be writing this up in more detail and ensuring that it gets into 
the FAQ that we'll be producing as well.  I hope this resolves your 
concern, and we look forward to your comments on the FAQ entry.

Thanks,
--Glen Daniels
   Director, Java Platforms
   WSO2, Inc.

TALBOT Jacques (TJA) wrote:
> * Title - is WS-Addressing irrelevant to "SOAP over JMS"?
> 
> * Description - for somebody outside of the working group, it looks
> like SOAP over JMS is closely linked to WS-Addressing, since JMS
> Queus are usually used for asynchronous MEPs. However, search the WG
> mailing list, and you do not find a single insantce of WS-Addressing.
> How come? possibly this has benn discussed on pthe WG private liste,
> but the spec says nothing about WS-Addressing being a non-goal.
> 
> * Justification - Usually, you want to use SOAP over JMS for
> Asynchronous Request Reply MEPs with some guaranteed quality of
> service. Because SOAP/http is not enough in some situations.
> Asynchronous is the key word, because usually, for synchronous MEPS,
> it is easier to recover from the failures at the application level.
> (It is not a coincidence that MQseries and the likes are both
> asynchronous and reliable) Therefore, at the SOAP level, it becomes
> necessary to get a Reply-Port naming scheme and a Correlation-ID,
> which is what WS-Addressing porovides. JMS queues provide the same
> kind of artifacts (AFAIK). So the spec should define some mappings
> between the WS-Addressing and the JMS artifacts.
> 
> * Proposal - evolve the WG goal to : "SOAP + WS-Addressing over JMS";
> as is, the specification is lagging versus the (slowly progressing)
> state of the art in Web Services (see wstf.org for example) and
> therefore of limited interest (IMHO).
> 
> Kind regards to the W3C community for their good job
> 
> -- Jacques Talbot - Teamlog 10 rue Lavoisier - 38330 Montbonnot Tél:
> 04 76 61 37 12  Mél: jacques.talbot@teamlog.com Tél. mobile 06 07 83
> 42 00
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 05:08:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:17 GMT