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

Re: Action without UsingAddressing

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:26:03 -0400
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <42F973CB.6090607@tibco.com>

Vote: 2, 3.

At the moment, at least.  There might well be a 4 I could vote for.

Marc Hadley wrote:

> 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 Wednesday, 10 August 2005 03:26:11 GMT

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