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

Re: [i60] Splitting semantics of namespace across multiple WS-A specs inhibits independent versioning

From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 00:02:41 -0400
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB02E7E06.B3D73B2F-ON85257014.00157712-85257014.00163804@us.ibm.com>
The most important issue here is that independent versifying of the three
specs is a bad idea, a possible source of every kind of trouble. I
completely agree with that; I think we have discussed that in the past in
the context of this or other issues. Three namespaces, or a single one,
could perfectly be used for the specs as far as I am concerned, but I don't
believe it matters much as long as the fact that all specs need to evolve
consistently is clearly spelled out.

Another issue is whether Core and SOAP should be merged, and that we have
also discussed several times in the past. It is a bad idea because
undermines the possibility of using WS-Addressing semantics on non-SOAP


                      "Jonathan Marsh"                                                                                                   
                      <jmarsh@microsoft.com>          To:       <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>                                            
                      Sent by:                        cc:                                                                                
                      public-ws-addressing-req        Subject:  [i60] Splitting semantics of namespace across multiple WS-A  specs       
                      uest@w3.org                      inhibits independent versioning                                                   
                      05/24/2005 04:47 PM                                                                                                

I have an action to start discussion of this issue.

I thought this issue would demonstrate that separate versioning of our
three specs would lead to a cross-product of schemas, it turns out we
simply can’t version these specs independently anyway. While it appears
that we’ve created three independent specs, there actually is a hierarchy
of dependencies:

   Core  <--  SOAP Binding  <--  WSDL Binding

If the SOAP Binding changes, the WSDL Binding spec must also be updated, as
it mandates a particular version of the SOAP Binding.  If the Core changes,
both the SOAP and WSDL Binding specs must also be updated, as they depend
upon a particular version of the Core.

New (SOAP or non-SOAP) bindings (including versions) cannot be introduced
independently.  For instance, if a new SOAP Binding for WS-A were
introduced, the facilities in the WSDL binding would not be sufficient to
indicate the new SOAP Binding is in use.  If a non-SOAP Binding is being
used, the WSDL Binding extension doesn’t provide a normative way to
determine what binding features are being asserted.  A separate WSDL
Binding extension (or an extension to the wsaw:UsingAddressing extension)
must be developed in each of these cases.  I think this issue points out
that the implications present in the spec that wsaw is separate from wsa
for versioning purposes are misguided.  A binding creator will have to
define a separate extension, or an extension point on the extension, to
denote which binding is in use.  We should make it clear in the WSDL
Binding spec that the extension only makes meaningful assertions when it is
used in conjunction with a SOAP binding, and that those assertions are
limited to the SOAP Binding we define.  It isn’t a sufficient general
purpose indicator to denote what it means for WS-Addressing to be engaged
in some other type of binding.  This mostly affects the Abstract and
Introduction of the WSDL Binding spec.

The split between Core and SOAP specs of the definition of a single
namespace also causes some unfortunate consequences.  Since the mapping of
spec to namespace isn’t 1-1, some questions are left unanswered - is the
namespace open, and each of these specs stakes out a few terms inside it,
leaving the possibility that other specs to define additional terms?  Or is
the namespace closed, and versions or extensions need to be expressed
through a different namespace?  Having two specs implies it’s open (unless
you tie those two specs even further together by specifying
cross-dependencies).  But the wsaw:UsingAddressing extension makes a strong
implication that the namespace is closed, because it is insufficient to
indicate where the definition of new terms might be found. Resolving this
contradiction might have impact throughout the spec family.  Merging the
Core and SOAP Binding specs would reduce the implication of openness, and
be consistent with the WSDL Binding.  Adding text to the Core and SOAP
Binding stating the namespace policy and making the cross-dependencies more
explicit, is also possible.

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Prasad Yendluri
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 11:28 AM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: NEW ISSUE: Splitting semantics of namespace across multiple WS-A
specs inhibits independent versioning

Splitting the semantics of a (e.g. WSAW) namespace across multiple WS-A
specs inhibits independent versioning of the specifications

The proposed resolution for issue i021 plans to use a marker defined in the
WSAW namespace introduced by one of the WS-A specifications to flag the use
of WS-Addressing in a WSDL description.  The intent is to use the WSAW
namespace to identify the WS-Addressing specification and the version of
it. However given WS-A is now split into three separate specifications the
chosen namespace where this marker is defined needs to identify this group
of specifications and their "common" version, there by inhibiting
independent versioning of the specifications. Hence this brings up a
generic issue with splitting semantics of a namespace across multiple
specifications inhibiting the ability to versioning those specifications

Core, WSDL Binding and SOAP Binding

Given the WS-Addressing comprises three coupled but independent
specification, it is highly desirable not to inhibit independent versioning
of the constituent specifications, as each specification will need to
change based on the issues and functionality changes pertinent to that

Ref: Action item,
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 04:02:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:09 UTC