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 10:38:01 -0700
Message-Id: <DA259FBD-01AB-41F0-BFD5-3E01FA4D803C@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>

For what it's worth, yes.

On 10/08/2005, at 9:33 AM, David Hull wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 17:38:19 GMT

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