- From: Arun Gupta <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:31:02 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Cc: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
I'll raise an issue in the next couple of days. -Arun Mark Nottingham wrote: > > 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 > > -- got Web Services ? Download Java Web Services Developer Pack from http://java.sun.com/webservices
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 16:28:47 UTC