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

RE: RE : WS-Addressing

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:18:09 -0400 (EDT)
To: "TALBOT Jacques (TJA)" <Jacques.TALBOT@teamlog.com>
cc: "public-soap-jms@w3.org" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808261058591.25140@ubzre.j3.bet>

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, TALBOT Jacques (TJA) wrote:

> So, where whould I ask? I try here, reinforcing hopefully Nathan's questions:
>
> SOAP on JMS draft:
>    soapjms:replyToName
>   the endpoint is according to the IETF JMS URI scheme
>
> WS-Addressing standard:
>  wsa:ReplyTo
>  wsa:FaultTo
>  + some specific semantics for anonymous
>
> The WSA endpoints are under the JAX-WS (e.g.) programmer's control.
> The soapjms port is under the SOAPonJMS binding implementor's control.
> Where should it be explained how these abstractions are related?

They are at different levels on the stack, in [1] (even if outdated), you 
can find this picture [2], probably more helpful than tons of lines of 
text.
Basically, SOAP-JMS can be considered an intermediate binding, so in any 
case what is dictated by the SOAP level (ie: wsa:ReplyTo wsa:FaultTo) is 
what will be used, what is given by soapjms:replyToName is "just" a 
binding indication that will be used if nothing else is set, or if 
anonymous is used.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlp-am-20030220/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlp-am-20030220/Figure5-1.png

> In a similar vein:
> wsa:MessageID and wsa:RelatesTo are under the JAX-WS (e.g.) programmer's control.
> JMSCorrelationID and JMSMessageID are under the SOAPonJMS binding implementor's control.
>
> I understand from Eric's answer that these are unrelated. In a way, the 
> binding code can "relate" them, but this is irrelevant for the 
> programmers and the run times (APIs and protocols) on both sides of the 
> connection.

It's relevant at the level you see them, the JMSCorrelationID is relevant 
to identify the correspondance at the SOAP JMS level (I guess it can be 
used for audit purposes), but should be hidden at the application level 
(even if there is probably a leaky abstraction there).

The wsa:MessageID is completely invisible at the JMS layer but it is 
visible at the application layer, it might be that for optimization 
purposes there is correlation for both level of IDs, but it's not granted 
by design.

>> From your experts' standpoint, all of this is of course trivialities and should be left as an exercise to the reader :-)
>> From my user's standpoint, it is better written down than assumed obvious.
>
> A more political view
> Pleeeease, be pedagogical and get out of the ivory tower or we will all 
> go the EJB2 way; WS-* is badly suffering from its complexity, it becomes 
> a hard sell for many projects. RESTful is so much more fun these days!

WS can be used in a RESTful way ;) (but not all the WS-* stack, of course)
Cheers,

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2008 15:18:43 GMT

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