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

Re: Issue 019: WSDL Version Neutrality [i034]

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:34:22 -0800
Message-Id: <CF0209B0-3838-11D9-A40B-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>

The text quoted below has become i034; the rest of the proposal was 
accepted on Monday's call, and i019 is closed.

   http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i034



On Nov 8, 2004, at 4:48 PM, Hugo Haas wrote:

> - the main issue with the action MIH comes from:
>
>     An action may be explicitly or implicitly associated with the
>     corresponding WSDL definition. Section 3.3 below describes the
>     mechanisms of association.
>
>   However, section 3.3 describes a WSDL 1.1-specific mechanism. If the
>   service has a WSDL 2.0 description, another mechanism needs to be
>   used, which is actually defined by the WSDL 2.0 specification[4].
>
>   I would therefore propose that section 3.3 be introduced as a
>   mapping of a WSDL 1.1 description to an action URI, that we note
>   that for WSDL 2.0, the message reference component URI should be
>   used.
>
>   This leaves us with an interesting issue: if there is a WSDL 1.1 and
>   WSDL 2.0 description available, which is the implicit value of the
>   action property? If in a year's time we release WSDL 2.1, what
>   happens? I believe that there is an implicit value of the action URI
>   recognized by the recipient of the addressing information for the
>   description of the service made in each version of WSDL. Those are
>   equivalent for the purpose of our specification.

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2004 01:34:49 GMT

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