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

Re: ISSUE-67: Need a SOAP 1.2-specific SOAP/JMS transport URL value [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]

From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:30:52 -0800
Message-ID: <4CEB0B3C.2050202@tibco.com>
To: Phil Adams <phil_adams@us.ibm.com>
CC: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group WG <public-soap-jms@w3.org>, public-soap-jms-request@w3.org
Hi Phil,

On 11/22/10 3:37 PM, Phil Adams wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> Thanks for responding to the issue so quickly.   Here are some comments:
>
> 1) I like your value better: "http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/soap1.2/"
> 1a) agreed, we should also define 
> "http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/soap1.1/ 
> <http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/soap1.2/>"

+1
>
> 2) I agree that part is important in terms of completing the issue, 
> but I was hesitant to go into that level of detail until we've agreed 
> on the approach for resolving the issue.   I think we're on the same 
> page in that regard, so the next step would be to propose the actual 
> changes to the spec.
>
> I think I would prefer a non-normative informational appendix that 
> specifies these values for use with JAX-WS in the event that the 
> vendor implementation needs to support JAX-WS.    I would hesitate to 
> define this change as a new optional normative conformance target, due 
> to where we are in the process and because I'm not totally convinced 
> that we should be coupling our binding spec with JAX-WS (or at least 
> to that extent).    To be honest, I think a more proper place to 
> define these BindingType annotation values would be in the JAX-WS spec 
> itself, where it also defines the SOAP/HTTP-related values.   But, 
> that would need to be addressed in a future version of JAX-WS and 
> there's no telling when that would occur.   So, failing that, perhaps 
> we should add a non-normative appendix that *encourages* the use of 
> specific values for the SOAP 1.1/JMS and SOAP 1.2/JMS cases.  This 
> would at least provide some guidance to vendors that also need to 
> support JAX-WS so that they could in turn provide portability to their 
> own customers.

+1
>
> If you agree with this, then I'll go ahead and propose the actual 
> changes to the binding spec.

I recommend waiting until at least one other person chimes in....  In 
the meantime, you can try to get those test cases going. ;-)

-Eric

>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
>
>
> From: 	Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
> To: 	SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group WG <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
> Date: 	11/22/2010 04:49 PM
> Subject: 	Re: ISSUE-67: Need a SOAP 1.2-specific SOAP/JMS transport 
> URL value  [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
> Sent by: 	public-soap-jms-request@w3.org
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> Thanks for raising the issue.
>
> I'm assuming we'll open the issue, and am leaping ahead to discussing
> your proposal:
>
> 1) I'm not thrilled by "http://www.w3.org/2010/soap12jms/".  I think it
> should probably be scoped within the URL space we have, and perhaps
> should be "http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/soap1.2/" instead.
>
> 1a) Since this is within the scope of what should be used by the JAX-WS
> BindingType, then perhaps we should take the opportunity to eliminate
> ambiguity, and specify "http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/soap1.1/" as well?
>
> 2) Your proposal doesn't discuss exactly where in the specification this
> new value would be documented.  This strikes me as somewhat important,
> because if this new value doesn't appear in the WSDL, but is only useful
> for the JAX-WS BindingType attribute, then making this a normative
> constraint involves actually adding an optional normative conformance
> target for a JAX-WS conforming binding.
>
> The question is, then, do we make this an informative appendix?  Or did
> you have something else in mind?
>
> -Eric.
>
> On 11/22/10 2:04 PM, SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> > ISSUE-67: Need a SOAP 1.2-specific SOAP/JMS transport URL value 
> [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/67
> >
> > Raised by: Phil Adams
> > On product: SOAP-JMS Binding specification
> >
> > Currently, the SOAP/JMS binding spec defines a single value 
> (http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/) to be used as the soap:binding 
> transport URL to indicate that the WSDL binding supports SOAP/JMS (see 
> section 3.3.2 of the binding spec).   According to the spec, this 
> single value should be used for both SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2.   [Also, 
> it seems that it is merely a coincidence that this transport URL value 
> is the same as the soapjms binding namespace value, although they 
> don't need to be the same value.   My point is that the value 
> "http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/" seems to be serving double duty - it 
> is the soapjms binding namespace value *and* it is also the 
> soap:binding transport URL value that indicates that SOAP over JMS is 
> being used.]
> >
> > If one restricts their view to only the WSDL document, then this 
> approach works fine, as the soap version associated with the actual 
> binding itself can be used to determine which version of SOAP is being 
> used.   For example, if the soap:binding element name refers to the 
> SOAP 1.1 namespace, then the binding indicates SOAP 1.1, and if the 
> soap:binding element name refers to the SOAP 1.2 namespace, then the 
> binding indicates SOAP 1.2.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this approach of using a single value to be shared 
> between SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 leads to a problem when considering a 
> JAX-WS application that does not use a WSDL document.  In this 
> situation, the author of the endpoint
> > implementation class might use the BindingType annotation like this:
> >
> > @WebService
> > @BindingType("http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/")
> > public class MyEndpointImpl {
> > }
> >
> > In this case, the author has only the BindingType annotation at his 
> disposal to indicate the SOAP version and transport that should be 
> used by his endpoint.
> > For the HTTP case, the JAX-WS specification defines separate values 
> for SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2, thereby allowing the endpoint author to 
> differentiate between
> > them while specifying the BindingType annotation.   But since the 
> SOAP/JMS binding spec defines only a single value, the author can 
> specify only SOAP 1.1 over JMS in this way.
> >
> > For this reason, I'm proposing that the SOAP/JMS binding spec define 
> the following transport URL value to be used in the BindingType 
> annotation to indicate SOAP 1.2 over JMS:
> > http://www.w3.org/2010/soap12jms/
> >
> > I'm also proposing that the binding spec be clarified to indicate 
> that the use of the value "http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/" in the 
> BindingType annotation specifically indicates that SOAP 1.1 over JMS 
> should be used for the endpoint.
> >
> > This proposal does not affect the value that will be used in the 
> WSDL document as we can continue to use the value 
> "http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/" as the soap:binding transport, since 
> the soap:binding element name's namespace can be used to define the 
> SOAP version to be used.
> >
> > To clarify...  if the endpoint author specifies
> >     @BindingType("http://www.w3.org/2010/soap12jms/")
> > on his endpoint implementation class, then this equates to the use 
> of SOAP 1.2 over JMS and the corresponding wsdl binding (generated by 
> the JAX-WS wsgen tool) would look like this:
> > <wsdl11:binding name="StockQuoteSoapJMSBinding" 
> type="tns:StockQuotePortType"
> >                xmlns:soapjms="http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/">
> > 15<wsdl11soap12:binding style="document"
> >                transport="http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/"/>
> >    ....
> >
> > Similarly, if the endpoint author specifies
> >     @BindingType("http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/")
> > then the corresponding wsdl binding as generated by wsgen would look 
> like this:
> > <wsdl11:binding name="StockQuoteSoapJMSBinding" 
> type="tns:StockQuotePortType"
> >                xmlns:soapjms="http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/">
> > 15<wsdl11soap11:binding style="document"
> >                transport="http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms/"/>
> >    ....
> >
> >
> > Before I propose specific changes to the SOAP/JMS binding spec, 
> let's first agree on this general approach for solving this issue
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 00:31:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:25 GMT