W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

RE: Issue 011

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 06:47:29 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633803D2619A@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Harris Reynolds" <hreynolds@webmethods.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
I don't believe this characterization is complete. The reason for taking
advantage of the SOAP processing model is to take advantage of the whole
model, not just mustUnderstand processing. The model of SOAP is that
SOAP nodes process headers. Different pieces of software, possibly at
different nodes, possibly at a single node, can process different
headers. Pushing RefProps(Params) into the wsa:To header means that I
now have to have a piece of software the processes the wsa:To header (
it needs to understand at least that much of WS-Addressing ) and then
pull out the relevant descendant elements. To me, this makes the
processing model 'the WS-Addressing processing model' and not the 'SOAP
processing model'. I want software to be able to use the latter without
having to know anything about the former.
 
Gudge


________________________________

	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Harris
Reynolds
	Sent: 02 November 2004 09:36
	To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
	Subject: Issue 011
	
	


	Here is a brief restatement of the issue: Why is the To EPR not
serialized in the same way that ReplyTo or FaultTo EPRs are?

	I understand Gudge's comment at the F2F indicating that there is
a difference between using an EPR to address a message (i.e. the "To"
element) and sending an EPR for subsequent use in the case of
ReplyTo/FaultTo etc.  However, there still seems to an opportunity to
simplify the specification by serializing EPRs similarly in both
requests and responses.  

	The advantage of the current approach is that the current SOAP
1.2 processing model can be used for processing reference properties
(parameters); primarily using the mustUnderstand attribute.

	In my view, the advantage of serializing the To element directly
as an EPR instead of splitting it into Address and Ref Props is
simplicity.  Using this approach the specification is easier to
understand for those responsible for implementing it:  if you have an
EPR, just stuff it into the SOAP header and your work is done.  As far
as processing the EPR, the same amount of work will be required either
way.

	From a practical perspective either method of serialization
would work.  The question is which would produce a better specification?


	~harris 


	------------------------------ 
	Harris Reynolds 
	webMethods, Inc. 
	http://www.webmethods.com/ 
	------------------------------ 
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2004 14:47:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT