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

Alternatives for resolving subissue 1 in issue i017

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:33:21 -0800
Message-ID: <41E2CA71.3000008@oracle.com>
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Here are the alternatives for resolving subissue 1 in issue i017 [1] -- 
I took an action for doing this during last week's call:

The subissue is about whether the value of the [action] property is 
required to be distinct within the scope of WSDL portType/interface when 
using WSDL to describe the Web service

Please note that this is an issue only when using WSDL to describe the 
service and therefore potentially affects only the WSDL binding spec and 
not the core or the SOAP binding.

Alternative 1:

yes, it is required to be distinct within the scope of a WSDL 
portType/Interface. The spec currently states:
"An identifier that uniquely (and opaquely) identifies the semantics 
implied by this message."
If the values are not distinct within the portType/interface then one 
has to wonder as to why there are two distinct operations within the 
portType/interface that have the same semantics? More accurately, the 
scope should not really be the portType/interface but should also 
include the directionality of the message, similar to the operation name 
mapping requirement of WSDL 2.0 [2]. An added advantage of this is that, 
the value of the [action] property now can be used to figure out which 
WSDL-operation is being "invoked" by an incoming message at the service 
(since operation-names do not manifest themselves on the wire) -- when 
it is not clear from the contents of the SOAP Body. This has been an 
interop problem in the past which led to WS-I Basic Profile 1.0/1.1 
requirement R2710 [3][4].

Alternative 2:

no, it is not required to be distinct within the scope of a WSDL 
portType/interface. There might be reasons for allowing non-distinct 
values <insert-use-case-here>. WSDL interface/operations that do satisfy 
the distinctness requirement can use the WSDL feature or WSDL 
extensibility described in [5] (or something similar).

[I don't think I'm doing justice to alternative 2 as I haven't come 
across a good usecase for this. If you do have one, please send it to 
the list]

Thx!

-Anish
--

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0004.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#Interface_OperationName
[3] http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html#R2710
[4] http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.0-2004-04-16.html#R2710
[5] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/att-0010/00-part
Received on Monday, 10 January 2005 18:33:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:01 GMT