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

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 08:09:45 +0000
Message-Id: <0E2CB81C-2F02-11D9-84E9-00039399DACE@arjuna.com>
Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
To: tom@coastin.com

+1

On 5 Nov 2004, at 05:24, Tom Rutt wrote:

>
> I agree it seems superfluous, give soap:action  in http header, and 
> the name of the child of soap:body also carrying the same information.
>
> It is not only in the EPR, but is a  mandatory header element at run 
> time.
>
> Tom Rutt
> Fujitsu
>
> Mark Little wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>  ----
>> Mark Little,
>> Chief Architect,
>> Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
>>  www.arjuna.com <http://www.arjuna.com>
>>
>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>     *From:* Sanjiva Weerawarana <mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
>>     *To:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>     <mailto:public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, November 03, 2004 7:42 PM
>>     *Subject:* Re: WS-Addr issues
>>
>>     Hi Steve,
>>          What's your view of dispatching with wsa:Action? Since those 
>> are
>>     required
>>     to be unique that gives enough info to find the operation to 
>> dispatch
>>     to within a service. The service itself is of course identified 
>> from
>>     the <To> somehow.
>>          Sanjiva.
>>
>>         ----- Original Message -----
>>         *From:* Vinoski, Stephen <mailto:Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>
>>         *To:* Doug Davis <mailto:dug@us.ibm.com>
>>         *Cc:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>         <mailto:public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
>>         *Sent:* Thursday, November 04, 2004 12:58 AM
>>         *Subject:* RE: WS-Addr issues
>>
>>         +1 to having a pointer to the WSDL itself in the EPR. We have
>>         found in working with our customers that having access to the
>>         service definition is critical for applications that rely on
>>         pure dynamic dispatching.
>>                  --steve
>>
>>             -----Original Message-----
>>             *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
>>             *Sent:* Wednesday, November 03, 2004 11:02 AM
>>             *To:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>             <mailto:public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
>>             *Subject:* WS-Addr issues
>>
>>
>>             I might have missed a formal request for "issues" from the
>>             public but since it appears there is now an issues list I
>>             thought I'd make some suggestions on possible issues for
>>             the WG's consideration:
>>
>>             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.
>>
>>             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.
>>
>>             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?
>>
>>             thanks
>>             -Doug
>>
>
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 08:11:15 GMT

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