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

Re: i056 Proposal

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:02:55 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A508BFEC03@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Do we need to define the behavior of EPR WSDL extensions in the face of
wsdl:required="false"?

 

-------------------------------------------

 

I took an action to generate a proposal for closing issue 56[1]. The 
issue concerns how to determine the value of the [destination] property 
when sending messages to an endpoint described in WSDL. The proposal is 
as follows:
 
- Allow a wsa:EndpointReference element to be included as a child of 
wsdl20:endpoint or wsdl11:port.
- When a wsa:EndpointReference element is present as a child of a 
wsdl20:endpoint/wsdl11:port the usual WS-Addressing/binding rules apply 
[destination]=wsa:EndpointReference/wsa:Address.
- When there is no wsa:EndpointReference child element, the 
[destination] property is taken from the endpoint or port address - 
endpoint/@address (WSDL 2.0) or the applicable WSDL 1.1 extension (for 
SOAP it is taken from soap:address/@location).
- If there is no wsa:EndpointReference and the endpoint or port address 
is not specified then the value of [destination] is the anonymous URI.
- If there is both a wsa:EndpointReference and an endpoint/port address 
then they must have the same value.
 
Marc.
 
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i056
 
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.

 
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 22:03:37 GMT

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