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

RE: Action without UsingAddressing

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:05:52 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709E541@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <curbera@us.ibm.com>, <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Cc: <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>

Paco rather sensibly said:

> The problem is essentially: is the WSDL
> description required to be exhaustive? I agree that the answer is NO, but I
> think this is probably for the WSDL working group to clarify.

I agree. I can't see how a WSDL document could ever be exhaustive, 
e.g. how can I describe that my endpoint is secured using Basic Authentication
and your account must be in credit without resorting to the "spec which shall 
not be named"?

And just because we're about to provide a mechanism for describing that
WS-Addressing is engaged, why should that invalidate services which
happen to have WSDLs that don't make use of it?

WSDL is just a description, which can be complete or incomplete as the
publisher wishes it to be.

OTOH if a WSDL explicitly stated WS-Addressing isn't in use and then the 
service required it, well that might be a different matter.

Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 11:06:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:10 UTC