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 16:06:33 +0000
Message-Id: <A9883E36-2F44-11D9-AE93-00039399DACE@arjuna.com>
Cc: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>

+1

I have yet to see anyone arguing for wsa:Action showing how it is 
fundamentally required for the architecture. What I'm looking for is a 
reason why it is simply impossible to build *any* Web Services 
applications without it. I (and I'm sure others) can point at a 
plethora of examples to the contrary.

Mark.

On 5 Nov 2004, at 15:46, Marc Hadley wrote:

>
> On Nov 4, 2004, at 4:52 PM, David Orchard wrote:
>>
>> So you are arguing that action may or may not be RPC.
>
> I'm arguing that the presence of action is orthogonal to the 
> programming model. One can build an RPC-like mechanism based on 
> dispatching on action or on the message payload. Similarly one can 
> build a message oriented mechanism on either. The presence or lack of 
> action doesn't mandate a particular programming model.
>
>> 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.
>>
> I'm OK with a particular service requiring the presence of an action. 
> I'm not OK with requiring every message to carry one even when the 
> service they are destined for doesn't use it. This is where we ended 
> up in the XMLP WG and I think its a good compromise position.
>
> Marc.
>
>>
>>> -----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.
>>
>>
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 16:17:39 GMT

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