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>


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
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  
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.


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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:07 UTC