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

On Nov 6, 2004, at 4:12 AM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> If a service doesn't require wsa:Action, then perhaps it shouldn't be
> usign WS-Addressing?
>
All or nothing eh. Why force folks to make such a stark choice over 
something that in some cases carries no useful information.

Marc.

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.

Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 17:08:15 UTC