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

Re: Action without UsingAddressing

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:38:17 -0700
Message-Id: <75D14C68-A4E0-48E3-8F69-E40D479452FA@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>

Can someone raise this as an issue (i.e., with a description, etc.),  
so we have something to hang our hat on in discussion?

Also, while it's truly *wonderful* that we're doing good technical  
discussion on the list -- and in August! -- keep in mind that we  
can't make decisions here; we'll need to vote at a meeting.

Cheers,


On 09/08/2005, at 8:26 PM, David Hull wrote:

>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 15:38:27 GMT

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