W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > April 2005

RE: Action item for issue i021

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:20:52 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A50722396F@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
To generalize your question, does splitting the definition of the
semantics of a namespace between multiple specs inhibit one's ability to
version those specs independently?  I think it does and this is an
important question to explore.

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Prasad
Yendluri
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 3:00 PM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: Action item for issue i021

 

So, subsequest to our discussion on the call today, I can understand how
the wsaw namespace URI itself can (implicitly) serve to identify the
core spec. But this IMO assumes that the Core WS-Addressing
specification and WSDL binding specification are versioned in lock-step
and the core sepc URI in that spec is updated. Specifically the point #2
below.  Can the WSDL binding, core and other binding specifications
version independently in future? Or do we expect issue a new revision of
WS-A WSDL binding specification (that simply updates the corespec
reference (namespace)) even when there are no changes otherwise to the
WSDL binding spec?   That seems like a dependency that can be violated
easily...

------- Original Message -------- 

Subject: 

Re: Action item for issue i021

Resent-Date: 

Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:49:32 +0000

Resent-From: 

public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Date: 

Mon, 04 Apr 2005 12:46:48 -0700

From: 

Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
<mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com> 

To: 

Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com> <mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com> 

CC: 

public-ws-addressing@w3.org


Hi,

I am trying to understand the impact of (future) versioning of
WS-Addressing specification itself on the solution proposed by this
proposal.
It is quite likely that we will need to deal with different versions of
WS-Addressing as we are with WSDL (1.1 vs 2.0) at this point, so I would
like that aspect to be addressed now.

Given the WSAW namespace is defined in the WS-Addressing WSDL binding
specification, I see two levels of versioning:

1.  Versioning of the WS-Addressing specification (as a whole) 
2.  Versioning of WS-Addressing WSDL binding specification alone,
independent of the core (and vice versa).

Now how does one specify which version of WSAddressing specification one
is using?

I mean the addition of the  
<wsaw:UsingAddressing wsdl:required="true"/>
property on the binding extension / component does not give one enough
information on the specific version of WS-Addressing. Also I am not sure
how robust the use of wsaw namespace would be when the WSDL binding,
core and other binding specifications version independently in future.
Or do we not expect the latter to happen at all?

Prasad

-------- Original Message -------- 

Subject: 

Action item for issue i021

Resent-Date: 

Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:44:29 +0000

Resent-From: 

public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Date: 

Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:43:40 -0500

From: 

Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com> <mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com> 

To: 

public-ws-addressing@w3.org

 

The following is a minimal proposal for representing the use of WSA in a
WSDL service description. This fullfils an AI I took long ago, apologies
for the long delay.
 
The approach is as follows: introduce a marker to be used in both WSDL
1.1
and WSDL 2.0 bindings to indicate the fact that a service uses and
requires
clients to use WSA message information headers in every service
invocation.
I think it is generally accepted that this indication belongs in the
WSDL
binding, since one could possibly want to deploy the same interface with
different protocols bindings in some of which WSA usage may not be
common,
including pre-WSA "legacy" SOAP bindings.
 
A key issue about the semantics of this marker is that it assumes no
change
on the behavior of the WSDL MEP and WSDL binding on which it is applied
EXCEPT for the fact that WSA MIHs will be present in accordance to the
WSA
WSDL binding spec. That is, the WSA WSDL binding marker is simply
"additive" to existing semantics. The reasons for making this clear at
this
time is that there are important behavioral implications of the presence
of
WSA headers that may conflict with the semantics of a WSDL binding; the
interaction between the two is essentially in the scope of the asynch TF
discussions and its resolution should not be precluded by the
introduction
of this marker. It is thus the case that when the marker proposed here
is
present in a WSDL binding, all WSA implied behaviors that are
inconsistent
with the semantics of the MEP/binding are explicitly not allowed (by the
service so described). The best example of this is the possible presence
in
an HTTP request of a replyTo EPR with an address that is not the
anonymous
URI. Assuming that the WSDL binding specifies a traditional HTTP
synchronous interaction, non-anonymous replyTo URIs are considered a
violation of the WSDL binding contract since this one mandates (as of
today) that the response be sent back over the open HTTP channel.
 
I propose the marker be defined in the WSAW namespace introduced by the
WSDL binding document.
 
<wsaw:UsingAddressing wsdl:required="true"/>
 
Some notes:
 
1. The wsdl:required=true is mandatory when the UsingAddressing element
is
used.
2. The marker element may appear within any of the binding elements:
<wsdl:binding>, <wsdl:operation>, <wsdl:input>, <wsdl:output>,
<wsdl:fault>
with semantics defined by the usual scoping rules.
 
WSDL 1.1 example:
 
<binding name="StockQuoteSoapBinding" type="tns:StockQuotePortType">
        <soap:binding style="document"
transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http"
<http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http> />
        <wsaw:UsingAddressing wsdl:required="true"/>
        <operation name="GetLastTradePrice">
           <soap:operation
soapAction="http://example.com/GetLastTradePrice"
<http://example.com/GetLastTradePrice> />
           <input>
               <soap:body use="literal"/>
           </input>
           <output>
               <soap:body use="literal"/>
           </output>
        </operation>
</binding>
 
WSDL 2.0 example:
 
<binding name="reservationSOAPBinding"
          interface="tns:reservationInterface"
          type="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/soap12"
<http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/soap12> 
          wsoap:protocol="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP"
<http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP> >
    <wsaw:UsingAddressing wsdl:required="true"/>
    <operation ref="tns:opCheckAvailability"
       wsoap:mep="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/request-response"
<http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/request-response> />
 
    <fault ref="tns:invalidDataFault"  wsoap:code="soap:Sender"/>
 
</binding>
 
 
Paco
Received on Monday, 11 April 2005 19:21:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:05 GMT