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

Re: Action without UsingAddressing

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 09:40:51 -0400
To: paul.downey@bt.com
Cc: curbera@us.ibm.com, umit.yalcinalp@sap.com, Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com, Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-id: <BC239512-4290-4D54-82E9-AAFE58D720ED@Sun.COM>
An interesting thread but I think its drifted away from the original  
question which was: if I don't include a wsa:UsingAddressing in my  
WSDL but I do include a wsa:Action, is the processor expected/ 
required to (i) include addressing MAPs and (ii) honor the action  
value declared in the wsa:Action. IOW, is inclusion of a wsa:Action  
equivalent to inclusion of a wsa:UsingAddressing and if so is it  
equivalent to one with wsdl:required=true or false ?

Maybe I've misunderstood, but it doesn't sound like we have any  
consensus on this yet. Here are the options as I see them:

1. Inclusion of wsa:Action is equivalent to inclusion of  
wsa:UsingAddressing with wsdl:required=true (messages MUST include  
wsa MAPs and wsa:Action MUST be honored)

2. Inclusion of wsa:Action is equivalent to inclusion of  
wsa:UsingAddressing with wsdl:required=false (messages MAY include  
wsa MAPs but if so wsa:Action MUST be honored)

3. Inclusion of wsa:Action without inclusion of wsa:UsingAddressing  
is purely advisory (messages MAY include wsa MAPs and if so  
wsa:Action MAY be honored)

4. Something else.

I don't like 1 since it seems to circumvent wsdl:required and will  
require special wsa aware WSDL processors. 2 and 3 seem OK, I have a  
preference for 2.

Chad anyone ?

Marc.


On Aug 9, 2005, at 7:05 AM, paul.downey@bt.com wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> Paul
>
>

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.




Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 13:41:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:08 GMT