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

Re: Action without UsingAddressing

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:33:19 -0400
To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <42FA2C4F.70802@tibco.com>

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.

We can still straw poll, no?

>
> 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 16:33:29 GMT

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