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

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:53:55 -0500
Message-Id: <67EDA13F-2EB4-11D9-95F2-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>

These issues have been added to the issues list.


On Nov 3, 2004, at 11:01 AM, Doug Davis wrote:
> issue: EPRs have WSDL bits - e.g. PortType, ServiceName.  But no 
> pointer to the actual WSDL itself - why not?  W/o the WSDL do these 
> values mean anything?  And if we assume the consumer of the EPR has 
> the WSDL why can't we assume they know the PortType and ServiceName? 
>  Perhaps an example of how this would be used would clarify it for me.

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i027


> issue: If a response message is expected then a wsa:ReplyTo MUST be 
> included.  Does the absence of a wsa:ReplyTo imply a one-way message? 
>  The spec seems to come very close to saying that.  And does the 
> presence of wsa:ReplyTo imply a two-way message?  My preference would 
> be to have a clear statement so that upon inspection of the message 
> itself a processor can know if its a one-way or two-way w/o having to 
> go back to the wsdl.

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i028


> issue: wsa:FaultTo:  "This property may be absent if the sender cannot 
> receive fault messages (e.g. is a one-way application message)."  But 
> it also says that in the absence of wsa:FaultTo the wsa:ReplyTo/From 
> may be used.  So, how does a client really say that it doesn't want 
> ANY fault messages at all but still be allowed to specify a wsa:From?

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i029

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:54:02 GMT

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