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

Re: Action item for issue i021

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:44:38 -0700
Message-ID: <425AD3A6.2010802@webmethods.com>
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
BTW, I just realized the WSAW namespace is not defined in the WS-A WSDL 
binding specification. I took it for granted based on the statement in 
the original proposal..

>I propose the marker be defined in the WSAW namespace introduced by the

>WSDL binding document.



Jonathan Marsh wrote:

> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 WS-Addressing 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 19:43:45 GMT

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