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

Re: Action without UsingAddressing

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:41:22 -0400
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: paul.downey@bt.com, Francisco Paco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>, Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, Arun Gupta <arun.gupta@Sun.COM>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <2BC04F10-1BF8-4B84-A95D-33319AE4577E@Sun.COM>
On Aug 9, 2005, at 5:41 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I tend to favor #3 (except for the last 'MAY'), but would like  
>>> to  phrase it differently:
>>> When WS-Addressing is engaged for a particular service/operation/  
>>> message (irrespective of the value of wsaw:UsingAddressing) and   
>>> wsaw:Action is present, all the rules around wsaw:Action MUST be   
>>> followed.
>>> Inclusion of wsaw:Action does not affect the interpretation of   
>>> wsaw:UsingAddressing. This implies that if wsaw:Action is  
>>> present  in WSDL and the corresponding message on the wire has  
>>> wsa:Action  but this wsa:Action does not adhere to the semantics  
>>> of wsaw:Action  then this is a violation of the spec.
>>>
>>>
>> That sounds just like my #2 above - what am I missing ?
>>
>
> #2 says that the presence of wsaw:Action is equivalent to the  
> presence of <wsaw:UsingAddressing wsdl:required='false'/> (when  
> such a marker is absent). This means that the service does support  
> WS-Addressing, but WS-Addressing is not required.
>
> Whereas what I'm stating above (as a reinterpretation of #3) is  
> that the presence of wsaw:Action does not necessarily mean that the  
> service supports WS-Addressing.
>
I'm still a bit confused, why would the WSDL have a wsa:Action in it  
if the service doesn't support WS-Addr ?

Marc.

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




Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 12:41:29 GMT

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