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 15:28:55 -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: <81D2E80D-FE68-413F-8DE9-03F3DC5A6355@Sun.COM>
I see, so we do have an option 4 which I would characterize as:

4. Inclusion of wsa:Action without inclusion of wsa:UsingAddressing  
is purely advisory, other information is needed to determine whether  
WS-Addressing is supported. If messages include WS-A MAPs then the  
wsa:Action MUST be honored.

I wonder if we should consider changing the target of wsa:Action to  
be the binding rather than the abstract port type/interface to  
simplify the logic here ? Seems like use of addressing is a binding  
level thing so why allow addressing properties to be specified on the  
abstract constructs.

Marc.

On Aug 10, 2005, at 2:47 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:

>
> Marc Hadley wrote:
>
>> 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 ?
>>
>
> To override the default action rules when a service implementing  
> the interface/portType does support WS-Addressing.
>
> Consider the case where the 'abstract' part of the WSDL is written  
> by someone else. A WSDL containing the service element imports that  
> WSDL and implements the abstract part. Since wsaw:Action is on the  
> input/output of an operation (the 'abstract' WSDL), is the service  
> required to support WS-Addressing?
>
> There are two possible cases here:
> 1) The abstract WSDL was written to allow services that support WS- 
> Addr as well as services that do not support WS-Addr. For services  
> that support WS-Addr, wsaw:Action is introduced to override the  
> default action rules (because the default, for whatever reason, is  
> not suitable). Therefore the presence of wsaw:Action does not  
> require the service to necessarily support WS-Addr.
> 2) wsaw:Action was included to do two things: (a) override the  
> default action rules, and (b) to say that ws-addressing must be  
> supported.
>
> Based on the current status of the WSDL binding, wsaw:Action is  
> meant to override the default action rules and not overridden to  
> mean <wsaw:UsingAddressing wsdl:required='false'/>. In fact, in  
> section '3.1 UsingAddressing Extension Element,' we specifically  
> allow this element to appear only on the binding element or the  
> port/endpoint element. We further go on to say in section '3.2 WSDL  
> SOAP Module':
> "Note that this module is not meaningful when used on WSDL  
> constructs where wsaw:UsingAddressing is not allowed."
>
> Given this, I prefer to not overload wsaw:Action to mean  
> <wsaw:UsingAddressing wsdl:required='false'/>. This also allow the  
> flexibility to override the default action rules without requiring  
> that WS-Addr be supported.
> But to be clear, I'm not opposed to overloading wsaw:Action as long  
> as we make the overloading explicit in section 4 (as well as modify  
> section 3.1 and 3.2).
>
> Hope that makes it clearer.
>
> -Anish
> --
>
>

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




Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 19:29:00 GMT

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