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

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

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 10:27:08 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0B8353D5@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>, "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>

I have been a little imprecise.  The soap 1.1 action header is optional
for the set of soap bindings.  It is mandatory for the HTTP binding but
optional for all the rest.  A SOAP 1.1 SMTP binding is free to use or
not use an "action header".

Therefore, a SOAP 1.1 processing (as opposed to HTTP processing) stack
will not be guaranteed the presence of an action header.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 4:34 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Mark Little; Francisco Curbera; public-ws-addressing@w3.org;
public-
> ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)
> 
> David Orchard wrote:
> 
> > The real problem is the same problem we had with the optional soap
1.1
> > action http header.
> 
> Acutally, the SOAPAction HTTP header is required and is not optional
[1].
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/#_Toc478383528
> 
> > 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.  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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 18:27:28 GMT

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