RE: Action without UsingAddressing

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arun Gupta
> Sent: Thursday, Jul 28, 2005 11:13 AM
> To: Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Action without UsingAddressing
> 
> 
> 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 ?

The question is whether you may ignore wsaw:Action when there is a
marker in wsdl, i.e. wsaw:UsingAddressing was present. Two WSDL
processors when there is a marker in WSDL should behave the same when
the marker is present. I don't think we can assume more than that. For
example, if I represent my extensions independent of WSDL, in a separate
policy file, etc. the endpoint would still conform to the WS-A, but the
WSDL may not have the marker. 

> 
> 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 ?

I don't think we can do that, namely we can not say that it is an error
to process wsaw:Action if there is no marker in the WSDL. 

I think this question boils down to whether we want to treat
wsaw:UsingAddressing like a policy assertion which may be part of WSDL
but may also be treated independently, i.e external attachment to a
specific endpoint. 

> 
> -Arun

--umit

> 
> 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 22:31:44 UTC