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

RE: WS-Addr issues

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:13:15 -0000
Message-ID: <37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA800172C7C9@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
I agree with Mark on this one.

 

wsa:action suggests some semantics about the processing of the message
when those semantics should really be inferred from the payload of the
message (e.g. the specification(s) of the document in soap:Body). It
seems to me that wsa:action may be (ab)used as a mechanism for exposing
the internal dispatching mechanism of a service implementation.

 

I can also see how it can make things easier for toolkits since they
won't have to process the payload in order to take decisions about how
to process it. From an architecture purity point of view, however, I
prefer the absence of wsa:action.

 

Regards,

--
Savas Parastatidis
http://savas.parastatidis.name
  

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Little
Sent: 04 November 2004 10:05
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: WS-Addr issues

 

Hi Sanjiva. Although not an answer to your question, I think it's worth
bringing up generally: personally I think wsa:Action should be dropped
or made optional. Why have an "op code" (which is essentially what it
is) embedded in an address? I can see that there are optimizations that
could be made to dispatching directly on the Action rather than having
to parse the body, but surely that's an implementation specific issue?
I'd be interested in knowing how many users of WS-Addressing actually
use this versus those that ignore it.

 

Mark.
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 13:13:26 GMT

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