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

Re: RE : WS-Addressing

From: Glen Daniels <glen@wso2.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:38:50 -0400
Message-ID: <48A56ACA.1090809@wso2.com>
To: Nathan Sowatskey <nsowatsk@cisco.com>
CC: "TALBOT Jacques (TJA)" <Jacques.TALBOT@teamlog.com>, "public-soap-jms@w3.org" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>, "tip-framework@lists.tmforum.org" <tip-framework@lists.tmforum.org>

Hi Nathan:

Let me turn this around a bit - can you please explain (this is for 
Jacques/Mark too) exactly what you think should be covered in the spec? 
  Mark's original message said "clear direction on what to do when using 
WS-Addressing header with SOAP/JMS"... We'll certainly cover that to 
some extent between the primer and the test suite (which will absolutely 
cover a variety of cases), but I'm not clear on just what you think 
should be included.  Keep in mind that Addressing says "here's how you 
use these headers/properties to bind to various SOAP MEPs", and our 
binding (just like the HTTP binding) says "here's a binding that offers 
SOAP MEPs".

Tell us what the problem is and we'll try to get it solved, or point you 
in the right direction at least.

Thanks,
--Glen

Nathan Sowatskey wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> The question of how WS-Addressing relates to the SOAP/JMS binding is also
> important to us, both at Cisco NMTG for our use of WSDM, and at the TMF TIP
> for reasons related to mapping MTOSI headers to WS-Addressing.
> 
> I can understand the WG's desire to avoid having to specify this in the
> SOAP/JMS the binding, but I hope that this does not cause ambiguity as a
> consequence. I don't believe that a FAQ entry is sufficient, though that
> could be a useful first step.
> 
> I expect that a this would require a normative addendum, which perhaps we
> could start planning for now?
> 
> Many thanks
> 
> Nathan
> 
> 
> On 06/08/2008 16:13, "TALBOT Jacques (TJA)" <Jacques.TALBOT@teamlog.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> Great, the cavalry to the rescue, two of us are now asking !
>> The FAQ "disclaimer" does not sound as a very exciting solution.
>> This is like the classical bureaucracy story: you ask Bureau 23, they tell
>> you, it is not us, ask bureau 54 and so on and so forth :-)
>>  
>> Jacques
>>                 
>> ___________________________________________
>> Jacques.Talbot@teamlog.com  Mobile: 06 07 83 42 00
>>
>> De : public-soap-jms-request@w3.org [public-soap-jms-request@w3.org] de la
>> part de Mark R Maxey [Mark_R_Maxey@raytheon.com]
>> Date d'envoi : mercredi 6 août 2008 11:46
>> À : public-soap-jms@w3.org
>> Objet : WS-Addressing
>>
>>
>> I've tried to follow the WS-Addressing discussion, so I'm sorry if I'm
>> rehashing old ground ...
>>
>> Did anyone consider leaving some properties abstract in this document and
>> creating other documents with concrete mappings to JMS headers &
>> WS-Addressing?  Is there going to be a addendum or note that speaks to
>> WS-Addressing? 
>>
>> I'd like to see clear direction on what to do when using WS-Addressing header
>> with SOAP/JMS.  There's ambiguity and overlap to be addressed.  WS-Addressing
>> also includes some metadata not available via JMS, e.g., FaultTo.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm misguided, but I thought the beauty of SOAP was that the same
>> message could be sent over HTTP or JMS without modification.  That concept is
>> broken if one is forced to use protocol specific metadata.  I would like to
>> see a SOAP/JMS or SOAP/HTTP where properties of protocols are configured via
>> the WSDL,  web services infrastructure "binds" to protocols at the transport
>> layer, and the creation and processing of message content is 100% based on the
>> XML SOAP payload.  This allows web service implementations to minimize the
>> amount of protocol specific code.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark Maxey
>>
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 15 August 2008 11:40:43 GMT

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