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

[destination] MAP and WSDL address

From: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:34:29 +0000
To: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF7415C911.FB1CFCEC-ON802570DE.003DE0B9-802570DE.003F95B6@uk.ibm.com>
The WS-A WSDL spec appears to be too restrictive wrt [destination] MAP. 

Here is the text:

>> 4.1 Destination
>> The value of the [destination] message addressing property for a 
message sent to an endpoint MUST match the 
>> value of the {address} property of the endpoint component (WSDL 2.0) or 
the address value provided by the relevant 
>> port extension (WSDL 1.1). For a SOAP 1.1 port described using WSDL 
1.1, the value is provided by the location 
>> attribute of the soap11:address extension element.

However, there are scenarios where the WSDL address is overridden at 
by the programming model (for example: JAX-RPC targetEndpointAddress).
The mandating of the [destination] MAP to the WSDL address in the above 
text does not allow for override. 
It forces the [destination] to be the development-time WSDL address rather 
than an updated runtime address. 

Looking back at the issue that generated this text, I wondered whether the 
intent was that the [destination] should be 
derived from the WSDL address only in the absence of additional 
information (as proposal 1 of the issue below)?

This text was a result of issue 56:
It was resolved with option 1 from the f2f minutes:
The text for option 1 is:
>> The [destination] property is taken from the endpoint or port address -
>> derived address (WSDL 2.0) or the applicable WSDL 1.1 extension (for
>> SOAP it is taken from soap:address/@location). ...

Before opening this as an issue, what are other folk's opinions?

Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2005 11:35:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:12 UTC