W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > March 2010

Re: ISSUE-30: The URI is not explicitly mentioned in the precedence rules for WSDL 2.0 [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:53:34 -0500
To: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group WG <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100302105334627463.193f25da@tibco.com>
Hmmmmm.

On Tue,  2 Mar 2010 13:33:51 +0000 (GMT), SOAP-JMS Binding Working 
Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> 
> ISSUE-30: The URI is not explicitly mentioned in the precedence rules 
> for WSDL 2.0 [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/30
> 
> Raised by: Mark Phillips
> On product: SOAP-JMS Binding specification
> 
> Section 3.6.1.1 (WSDL 2.0) of the spec. states that the property 
> precedence rules are the same as in section 3.4.4 but the explanatory 
> wording does not mention the URI.  It would be clearer and more 
> consistent if we mentioned the URI in both sections.

I think that this has come up before.  Perhaps we should check for 
records?

> Proposal: 
> 
> In section section 3.6.1.1 change the sentence: 
> The most-specific setting overrides less-specific ones, so endpoint 
> wins over service, which wins over binding. For a particular 
> interaction, the property might be found on the Endpoint component, 
> then Service, then Binding, taking whichever value you find first. 
> ...to...
> The most-specific setting overrides less-specific ones, so URI wins 
> over endpoint , endpoint wins over service, and service wins over 
> binding. For a particular interaction, the property might be found on 
> the URI, then Endpoint, then Service, then Binding, taking whichever 
> value you find first. 

Where is "URI" coming from, if it isn't coming from "endpoint", in WSDL 
context?

That's been the question raised, as I recall, in previous discussions.  
Yes, if you're operating without WSDL (which is valid, as WSDL support 
is not required for conformance with the SOAP/JMS binding core), then 
URI will *still* be available (and the properties that it 
defines/exposes will be available, as a consequence--but it and the 
environment will be the only property sources; WSDL is irrelevant in 
that context).  If you're in a WSDL environment, then the URI is 
presumably provided *by the WSDL endpoint*; there's no provision, *in 
WSDL*, for overriding the endpoint URI with an externally-supplied 
abstraction.

In short, in WSDL, "endpoint" contains "URI", so that the text as it 
stands is effectively complete, and introducing "URI" as a concept 
somehow able to override "endpoint", when WSDL support is active, 
introduces incompatibility with the WSDL specification (whether it is 
1.1 or 2.0).  So ... I recommend that this be closed with no action, or 
else we clarify, in the text:

"... the property might be found on the Endpoint component (which 
contains the URI), ..."

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 15:54:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:23 GMT