W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > April 2005

Allowance of Migration Contracts for WS-addressing conformant endpoints

From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:38:51 -0700
Message-ID: <4266859B.6070706@coastin.com>
To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org

a) Section 3 of core ( 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050331/ ) states

Message addressing properties provide references for the endpoints 
involved in an interaction. The use of these properties to support 
specific interaction is in general defined by both the semantics of the 
properties themselves and the implicit or explicit contract that governs 
the message exchange. If explicitly available, this contract can take 
different forms including but not being limited to WSDL MEPs and 
interfaces; business processes and e-commerce specifications, among 
others, can also be used to define explicit contracts between the parties.

For migration purposes an pre-existing wsdl defined request/response 
service endpoint may wish to publish an EPR, which contains the http 
POST url in the address element, an which does not conatin ref parms, 
and may contain wsdl specific metadata (e.g., port type. Such an 
endpoint may support a contract specifying that it will accept ws 
addressing headers and behave as specified in ws addressing spec when it 
receives these headers, however also specifying that it will continue to 
accept http post requests without ws addressing headers.

This needs to be reflected in the above paragraph somehow.

One proposed solution is to add the above paragraph to this section.

b) In the Soap binding spec ( 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-soap-20050331/ )

5.2 Message Addressing Property Required

A required message addressing property is absent.
[Code] S:Sender
[Subcode] wsa:MessageAddressingPropertyRequired
[Reason] A required message addressing property is not present.
[Detail] [Missing Property QName]

It should be clarified that there is no requirement that the above fault 
MUST be sent by every endpoint which has published an endpoint 
reference, when it receives invocations from senders which are not 
conforming to WS-addressing.

One proposed solution is to add the following paragraph:

“Endpoints should be allowed to support “migration” contracts which 
allow clients to continue to invoke operations outside of the scope of 
ws-addressing, even though that service endpoint claims conformance to 
ws-addressing (i.e., it will act within the ws-addressing behaviour if 
the sender includes ws-addressing headers in their request).”

Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2005 16:39:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:49:00 UTC