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

Re: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo

From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:28:24 -0800
Message-ID: <41951CE8.2040807@coastin.com>
To: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
CC: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@sun.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org



Francisco Curbera wrote:

>
>
>
>Tom,
>
>Aren't the flexibility and optimization concerns you bring up covered
>within the scope of issue 6?
>
>Paco
>
>
>  
>
If the sender has to put a wsa:reply to if there is a wsdl response, 
then it cannot be removed even if the wsdl request/response is mapped
to soap/http post request/response.  The optimization I refer to is for 
that case.

Tom

>
>                                                                                                                                               
>                      Tom Rutt                                                                                                                 
>                      <tom@coastin.com>               To:       Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>                                          
>                      Sent by:                        cc:       Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@sun.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org                 
>                      public-ws-addressing-req        Subject:  Re: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo                              
>                      uest@w3.org                                                                                                              
>                                                                                                                                               
>                                                                                                                                               
>                      11/12/2004 12:22 PM                                                                                                      
>                      Please respond to tom                                                                                                    
>                                                                                                                                               
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Martin Gudgin wrote:
>
>  
>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com]
>>>Sent: 12 November 2004 17:02
>>>To: Marc Hadley
>>>Cc: Martin Gudgin; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>>Subject: Re: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Also, if there is no need for transport independence, the
>>>message should
>>>not have to send wsa:reply to when a wsdl request/response is bound
>>>to a request/response transport (e.g., soap http/post binding).
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>How does the crafter of a message determine whether there is a need for
>>transport independence or not? I might be adding WS-Addressing headers
>>to a message at a layer that is unaware of the binding in use. And the
>>layer processing the WS-Addressing headers on the receiver side might
>>not know what binding the message came in on.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>I am speaking of an environment where the flexibility of EPRs is
>desired, but the day to day
>infrastructure in use is in an exclusively soap/httpPost environment.
>As an optimization, the sender may know
>the environment it is using, and does not need to send stuff that is
>unnecessary.
>
>  
>
>>    
>>
>>>I
>>>would say wsa:replyTo is only required to be send when the request /
>>>response
>>>is bound to a one way underlying transport.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I really believe this would be a mistake. I really want a world where
>>the set of headers is NOT dependant on *how* the message is transmitted
>>( or how some future message will be transmitted ).
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>I want a world where extraneous stuff not needed for a particular
>application of WS:addressing must be sent.
>
>Some Fujtisu product people desire the ability to optimize and tune for
>performance in tighly constrainted infrastructure
>environments.
>
>
>  
>
>>Gudge
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Tom Rutt
>>>
>>>Marc Hadley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>On Nov 12, 2004, at 6:08 AM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>On Nov 11, 2004, at 3:01 PM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So it sounds like you'd be in favor of saying that presence
>>>>>>>>of ReplyTo
>>>>>>>>implies a request is expected and that absence
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>indicates a one-way
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>>message ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope. I think that if you expect a reply, you MUST specify [reply
>>>>>>>endpoint]. So in request-response style MEPs [reply
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>endpoint] would
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>always be specified in the request message. However, I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>don't think that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>specifying [reply endpoint] necessarily means you expect
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>a reply (in
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>request/response stylee). Does that make sense. I'm saying
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   if a then b
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>but I'm NOT saying
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   if b then a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I understand what you mean but I'm not sure it makes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>sense ;-). If we
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>could say that presence of ReplyTo indicates that a reply
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>is expected
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>then that would seem like a useful semantic. What's the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>purpose of a
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>ReplyTo in a message that isn't expected to generate a reply ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>OK, it depends on what you mean when you say 'generate a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>reply'. Do you
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>mean
>>>>>
>>>>>a) 'generate a reply as part of the same WSDL MEP'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>b) 'generate a reply, not necessarily part of the same WSDL MEP'
>>>>>
>>>>>I have certain protocols that do specify a [reply
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>endpoint], do expect
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>(hope?) that a reply to be sent at some point, but NOT as
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>part of the
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>same WSDL operation as the initial message.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>That's the kind of scenario I was getting it when I raised
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>issue i015
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>about redirection. E.g. if a responder in a request
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>response MEP sends
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>back a ReplyTo header, do we expect that to apply to subsequent
>>>>interactions between the requester and responder. I.e. what is the
>>>>scope of the effect of a ReplyTo, is it scoped to an instance of a
>>>>particular MEP or something wider ? Till now I'd been assuming the
>>>>former, are you suggesting it should be the latter ?
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Marc.
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
>>>>Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>--
>>>----------------------------------------------------
>>>Tom Rutt         email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
>>>Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------
>Tom Rutt           email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
>Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 20:30:39 GMT

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