- From: Arun Gupta <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:13:12 -0700
- To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
In that case two WSDL processors can process the same WSDL differently. For instance, one WSDL processor may ignore wsaw:Action and the other processor may use it for sending SOAP messages. Is that an acceptable behavior ? Since wsaw:UsingAddressing is the normative way to define the intent to conform to WS-Addressing, I think we need to define a consistent behavior in the WSDL binding to that effect. Basically stating that wsaw:Action on an operation need to be processed only if wsaw:UsingAddressing exists. Is that too strong a statement ? -Arun Anish Karmarkar wrote: > > There aren't any required/mustUnderstand rules for attribute extensions > (which is what wsaw:Action is) in WSDL. If wsaw:Action is present > without a wsaw:UsingAddressing on the corresponding binding/port then I > would think it would be up to the WSDL processor to decide whether it > wants to ignore wsaw:Action or not (in which case it will have to engage > ws-addressing). > > -Anish > -- > > Arun Gupta wrote: > >> >> If the WSDL does not contain wsaw:UsingAddressing in either >> wsdl:binding or wsdl:port but some of the wsdl:portType/ >> wsdl:operation(s) contain wsaw:Action, what is the expected behavior >> in such case ? >> >> I would expect that we ignore wsaw:Action on wsdl:operation. WSDL >> Binding does not seem to say anything about such a case. >> >> -Arun > > -- got Web Services ? Download Java Web Services Developer Pack from http://java.sun.com/webservices
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2005 18:11:40 UTC