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

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:24:00 -0000
Message-ID: <043301c4c271$8bb53c60$850a090a@exhp>
To: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
>From what I've seen in a number of different projects/products (from different companies) where it is used, wsa:Action is ignored by the receiver and the sender tends to just stick in any URI. Now wsa:Action advocates could say that those implementations are broken, but then those implementers could just as easily say that they didn't need it in the first place, so the spec. is broken.

I'd like to see it removed entirely, but I can see the reason for it. So why not make it optional in that case?

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Savas Parastatidis 
  To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
  Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:13 PM
  Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues

  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.



  Savas Parastatidis


  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.


Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 13:23:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:06 UTC