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

RE: Issue 019: WSDL Version Neutrality

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:48:56 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A505AEE01B@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 6:25 PM
> To: Rich Salz
> Cc: Jonathan Marsh; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 019: WSDL Version Neutrality
> 
> Hi Rich.
> 
> * Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com> [2004-11-16 20:17-0500]
> > > Maybe if others agree with me, and if we also want to ease
migration,
> > > we should actually change the algorithm for 1.1 to match 2.0's.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by this (please explain), but the
phrasing
> > sets of alarm bells.  We *cannot* break the current deployed base,
> > of WSDL 1.0 and how it's used, so I assume you don't mean that.
> 
> It would be a change for WSDL 1.1 + WS-Addressing deployed solutions.
> However, in any case, the addressing namespace will change as well as
> probably other things, so something will have to change with the new
> version of addressing. So I think that we are not breaking the
> deployed base as new code will have to be written anyway.
> 
> The solutions for implicit action values that have been proposed are:
> 
> 1. keep the WSDL 1.1 implicit value algorithm for WSDL 1.1, use the
>    WSDL 2.0 component designator URI for WSDL 2.0, and treat those as
>    equivalent
> 
> 2. keep the WSDL 1.1 implicit value algorithm for WSDL 1.1, introduce
>    a similar algorithm for WSDL 2.0, so that the values match in most
>    cases
> 
> 3. keep the WSDL 1.1 implicit value algorithm for WSDL 1.1, use the
>    WSDL 2.0 component designator URI for WSDL 2.0, but treat those
>    differently: basically, in at least one of those descriptions, the
>    action will have to be specified so that it is the same in both
>    cases
> 
> 4. use the WSDL 2.0 component designator URI for WSDL 2.0, provide a
>    similar algorithm for WSDL 1.1, so that the values match in most
>    cases
> 
> (1) requires implementors to (potentially) support as many URIs as
> there are WSDL descriptions of different versions of their service.
> 
> (2) introduces a new URI mechanism for WSDL 2.0 whereas WSDL 2.0
> already defines one which allows to dereference the WSDL.

>From my previous post, the purpose of action is not to allow
dereferencing the WSDL.  Neither do component designators provide a
black and white advantage in regards to dereferencing.  I believe it
will be easier to define a mechanism designed for WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0
than the reverse.

> (3) requires to specify the action value in one of the descriptions -
> if several are being provided - if a value is not manually set.
> 
> (4) introduces a new URI mechanism for WSDL 1.1 which is different
> from the one which is in the Member submission.
> 
> (3) or (4) have my personal preference.

(2) has my preference, though perhaps (3) is doable to.  I'll come up
with a concrete proposal for (2).

> Cheers,
> 
> Hugo
> 
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2004 19:49:32 GMT

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