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

RE: [destination] MAP and WSDL address

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:30:23 +1100
Message-ID: <BEE2BD647C052D4FA59B42F5E2D946B304DDEB@AUSYMS12.ca.com>
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, "Katy Warr" <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
That sounds like a good idea. Perhaps we should require that it contain a meaningful value, and suggest that in many?most?normal?common? cases this value would be ...
 
Tony

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Yalcinalp, Umit
Sent: Thu 22-Dec-05 7:07
To: Katy Warr; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: RE: [destination] MAP and WSDL address


Katy, 
 
We made them dependent in order for the values to be driven by WSDL. Further, we wanted the destination to always contain a value (unless it is an anonymous response). The intent was not to prevent the override, but to require a "value" for the destination to be present unless it is a synchronous response. The problem is due to mapping destination property (mandatory) to wsa:To (optional). The wsa:To is optional only when the destination is anonymous (hence synchronous response). 
 
The case you are referring to does not pertain to the synchronous response but to the destination property which is intended for the request message to be sent. I do not think we deliberately wanted to prevent the override in this case. That is my recollection anyway.
 
It seems that we could relax the language to allow the override with careful wording by requiring the destination to always contain a meaningful value (i.e. non anonymous) unless it is a response message. 
 
--umit
 


________________________________

	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Katy Warr
	Sent: Wednesday, Dec 21, 2005 3:34 AM
	To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
	Subject: [destination] MAP and WSDL address
	
	

	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 runtime 
	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: 
	http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i056 
	It was resolved with option 1 from the f2f minutes:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/0001 
	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? 
	
	Thanks 
	Katy 
	
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2005 21:32:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:10 GMT