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

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

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:44:52 -0000
Message-ID: <37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA800172CB19@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Hi Jonathan,

> ...
> > - simpler processing of the message by applications or
intermediaries
> >
> > I personally don't see why wsa:action enables these. Checking the
> value
> > of the wsa:action header isn't as simple as checking the qname of
the
> > soap:Body child in order to infer semantics or any other
> > protocol-specific header as suggested in [1]?
> ...
> 
> Sometimes it's not so simple to check the QName of the soap:Body
child.
> Sanjiva listed security and reliability as complicating factors [1].
> 
> [1]
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Nov/0184.ht
> ml

Yup, I totally understand this. I don't disagree that in situations
where the headers are left unencrypted there can be a processing speed
advantage.

I note however that the same is true for any protocol-specific headers
that could be used for the same purpose.

e.g.

<soap:Header>
  <ws-mex:GetMetadata />
</soap:Header>

But I guess that's a different discussion.

Many thanks!
.savas.
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 20:45:11 GMT

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