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

Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 08:56:13 +0000
Message-Id: <8BFAEAA4-2F08-11D9-84E9-00039399DACE@arjuna.com>
Cc: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>

Dave, who are these "people"? What is to say that in some circumstances 
they weren't right to do that? In those cases where they weren't, then 
that's down to poor education of the principles involved and best 
practices. Let's not develop an architecture based on lowest common 
denominator. The counter argument is that a mandatory Action 
perpetuates the cycle of "people" who don't need it just filling it 
with garbage and receivers relying on that garbage for some reason. If 
it's optional then you've a better chance of showing that if it is 
present, it really means something!

Mark.

On 4 Nov 2004, at 21:52, David Orchard wrote:

> Marc,
>
> So you are arguing that action may or may not be RPC.  Without going
> further on that (which I could but we've got an overload of messages
> already), my point was that people ended up always looking into the
> message to determine the "action" under the optional soap 1.1 action
> header.  A mandatory WSA:Action breaks that cycle and an optional 
> Action
> perpetuates it.
>
> Dave
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 11:36 AM
>> To: David Orchard
>> Cc: Francisco Curbera; public-ws-addressing@w3.org; Mark Little
>> Subject: Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)
>>
>> On Nov 4, 2004, at 12:33 PM, David Orchard wrote:
>>>
>>> The real problem is the same problem we had with the optional soap
> 1.1
>>> action http header.  Software can't count on it being there, so they
>>> end
>>> up looking inside the body as "the one true and certified source of
>>> action" which effectively pushed everybody into RPC land.
>>
>> I think the association between looking at the payload of a message
> and
>> RPC is false. One could just as easily argue that requiring an action
>> is *more* RPC-like where action==method and message payload==method
>> parameters.
>>
>> RPC is in the eye of the beholder, its not defined by the presence or
>> lack of an action.
>>
>> Marc.
>>
>>>   This happened
>>> because all the toolkits had to support at least looking in the body
>>> and
>>> then not all did the look at action and thus the world was a worse
>>> place.
>>>
>>> I predict that an optional WSA:Action will have the same effect IF
>>> there
>>> is no mandatory/normative way of generating a WSA:Action infset
>>> property
>>> from any binding that hasn't serialized the WSA:Action as a soap
> header
>>> block.
>>>
>>> I don't want to live in the message bodies always contain the verb
>>> world
>>> any more.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:24 AM
>>>> To: David Orchard; Francisco Curbera
>>>> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org;
> public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)
>>>>
>>>> David, I changed the subject line - you're right in that regard.
>>>>
>>>> As for keeping wsa:Action mandatory, I think you're wrong ;-)
>>>>
>>>> What is the real problem with making this optional? What would
> break
>>> as a
>>>> result?
>>>>
>>>> Mark.
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> Mark Little,
>>>> Chief Architect,
>>>> Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
>>>>
>>>> www.arjuna.com
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
>>>> To: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>; "Mark Little"
>>>> <mark.little@arjuna.com>
>>>> Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>;
>>> <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 4:40 PM
>>>> Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Arguing against action is like arguing against HTTP operations.
>>> Having
>>>>> one spot for Action will give all WS-A applications a much simpler
>>>>> processing model and enable a doc/literal world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Separately, can we pick better subject lines and focus the
>>> conversation
>>>>> a bit?  I think this thread is on mandatory Action.  I expect we
> are
>>>>> going to debate every single component's mandatory/optional nature
>>> and
>>>>> separating them would help a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>>>>> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
>>>>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Curbera
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 6:26 AM
>>>>>> To: Mark Little
>>>>>> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org;
>>> public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: WS-Addr issues
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea that the intent of the message is *always* embedded in
>>> the
>>>>> body
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the message smells like SOAP-RPC in sheep clothes to me. I am not
>>>>> saying
>>>>>> that will never be the case, but you need to allow for the case
> in
>>>>> which
>>>>>> the same document type is used in different interactions - for
>>>>> example, a
>>>>>> customerInfo document could be sent as input to both an "update"
>>> and a
>>>>>> "create" operations.This "document centric" model is actually
> very
>>>>>> frequent
>>>>>> (it is no uncommon in CICS applications for example). To support
>>> this
>>>>>> model
>>>>>> you need either an Action header or something functionally
>>> equivalent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paco
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                       "Mark Little"
>>>>>>                       <mark.little@arjuna.com>        To:
>>>>> "Sanjiva
>>>>>> Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>,
>>> <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
>>>>>>                       Sent by:                        cc:
>>>>>>                       public-ws-addressing-req        Subject:
>>> Re:
>>>>> WS-
>>>>>> Addr issues
>>>>>>                       uest@w3.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                       11/04/2004 05:05 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana
>>>>>> To: 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
>>>>>>  To: Doug Davis
>>>>>>  Cc: 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
>>>>>>        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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---
>> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
>> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
>
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 09:05:58 GMT

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