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

Re: NEW Issue - Reference to WSDL definition in an EPR

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:00:48 -0800
Message-Id: <81C72381-3385-11D9-9807-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: "Vinoski, Stephen" <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
To: "Bergersen, Rebecca" <Rebecca.Bergersen@iona.com>

Rebecca,

Issue 23 became a discussion of optionality in EPRs because that was  
the most well-defined aspect of it discussed at the F2F; your action  
item was specifically intended to assure that the other aspects of the  
original issue, as you saw them, were captured.

Your proposed issue did not "disappear"; I asked for clarification, in
    
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Nov/ 
0109.html
Thank you for providing that clarification, and for capturing the  
remainder of your original issue.

Can you differentiate what you describe below from the existing issue  
27?
   http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i027
What's there *appears* to be the same issue that you're raising.

If it is essentially the same issue, I'll augment the existing issue  
with the information and proposal you've provided, rather than open a  
duplicate issue knowingly.

Thanks,



On Nov 10, 2004, at 4:31 PM, Bergersen, Rebecca wrote:

> In case this issue looks familiar to the twenty or so people who  
> attended the NYC face-to-face, it should. This "new" issue is a  
> restatement of an issue that was defined at the second day of that  
> face-to-face meeting in New York; it was discussed for two hours on  
> the third day of that meeting and discussion was continued to the  
> teleconference.  However, when the teleconference occured, the issue  
> had been framed as the optionality of metadata - certainly a point of  
> view on a link to a WSDL service definition, but not the actual topic  
> of the issue defined at the face-to-face.  However, at the  
> teleconference I was given the action item to redefine both this issue  
> and the multiple ports issue.  I did that, publishing both issues the  
> following morning.  The ports issue made it to the issue list, but the  
> WSDL reference issue disappeared.  Instead an issue dealing with  
> WSDL:location that was submitted later by another individual appeared.
>  
> This reference to WSDL definition in an EPR is a restatement of the  
> issue in the formal manner that was defined after the sequence of  
> events described above.  Please discuss this issue based on the formal  
> definition I have presented.
>  
> With respect,
> Rebecca Bergersen
> Principal Architect, Middleware Standards
> rebecca.bergersen@iona.com
> -------------------------------------------------------
> IONA Technologies
> 200 West Street Waltham, MA 02451 USA
> Tel: (781) 902-8265
> Fax: (781) 902-8001
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Making Software Work Together TM
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bergersen, Rebecca
>  Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 7:11 PM
> To: 'public-ws-addressing@w3.org'
> Cc: Vinoski, Stephen; Newcomer, Eric; Bergersen, Rebecca
> Subject: NEW Issue - Reference to WSDL definition in an EPR
>
> Title: Reference to WSDL definition in an EPR
>  
> Description:  According to the ws-addressing submission, "Endpoint  
> references
>   convey the information needed to identify/reference a Web service
>   endpoint, and may be used in several different ways: endpoint
>   references are suitable for conveying the information needed to
>   access a Web service endpoint...."  However, in order to assure that
>   the information needed to access a Web service endpoint, a reference
>   to the WSDL definition of a service is sometimes required and in
>   those cases must be included as part of the EPR construct.
>   
> Justification: This requirement derives from several common use
>   cases. For example, in a communication chain there may be
>   intermediaries that can accept incoming messages and, in a fully
>   dynamic manner, further dispatch or route those onward. This is what
>   we do with our products.  The trick is that the next recipient might
>   use a completely different protocol/transport/format than what the
>   message came in on. For this case it is necessary to perform a fully
>   dynamic dispatch by using the target's WSDL definition and to build
>   dynamic proxies and to bind to the service over one of the
>   protocol/transport/format combinations it supports. The whole
>   definition is required so there is access to all the possible  
> bindings
>   for the service. The WSDL definition is also used in cases where
>   consumer applications want to avoid compiling in static port type
>   information, and instead want, for flexibility purposes, late
>   (runtime) binding to the service.  
>   
> Target: Core
>  
> Proposal:
>   1. Extend section 2.1, Information Model for Endpoint References, to
>   include the following:
>     [definition] : URI (0..1)
>       The optional element that provides an link to the WSDL service
>       definition.
>   
>   2. Extend section 2.2, Endpoint Reference XML Infoset
>      Representation, to include the following:
>  
>      Example 2-1. @@@
>        <wsa:EndpointReference>
>           ...
>           <wsdl:serviceDefinition>xs:anyURI</wsdl:serviceDefinition>
>           ...
>        </wsa:EndpointReference>
>      
>        and to include the following as a description of the additional
>       information:
>   
>       /wsdl:serviceDefinition
>       This optional element provides a link to the WSDL service
>       definition.
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2004 02:00:55 GMT

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