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

Re: Action without UsingAddressing

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:32:34 -0700
Message-ID: <42EA8452.1070409@oracle.com>
To: Arun Gupta <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Arun Gupta wrote:
> 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 ?

I would think so. The WSDL spec does not say whether attribute 
extensions are mandatory or not.

This is no different than having wsa:UsingAddressing element with a 
wsdl:required='false'. In such a case, WSDL processor A may choose to 
engage WS-Addressing and WSDL processor B may not choose to engage 
WS-Addressing. Which is fine, since the service advertised it as so.

> 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 think it is too strong a statement. It is possible that WS-Addressing 
is engaged even if wsa:UsingAddressing is not specified in WSDL. One way 
this may happen is (as Umit mentions in her email) through policies.

> -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
Received on Friday, 29 July 2005 19:32:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:10 UTC