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

Re: Self-describing Messages wrt MEPs

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:22:19 -0400
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <326DDB06-C0A0-43B2-824B-89A7B064775F@Sun.COM>
So we'd pre-define a second [destination] URI to accompany the  
existing anonymous URI:

http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/null

Where

<wsa:ReplyTo>
   <wsa:Address>http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/null<wsa:Address>
</wsa:ReplyTo>

and

<wsa:FaultTo>
   <wsa:Address>http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/null<wsa:Address>
</wsa:FaultTo>

are equivalent to

1>/dev/null and 2>/dev/null for the Unix minded among us ?

What would be the semantics of such a wsa:ReplyTo though, would it  
mean "never send me a reply to this message" or "don't use any  
available back channel to send me a reply, but you can reply in other  
ways" ? In other words is it scoped to the SOAP MEP, the WSDL MEP or  
some higher level 'conversation' ?

Marc.


On Jun 22, 2005, at 5:08 PM, David Orchard wrote:

> Almost like wsa:nil?
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:49 PM
> To: David Orchard; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Self-describing Messages wrt MEPs
>
>
>
> Even so, I do like this - explicitly calling out that no reply is  
> expected is a good thing.
>
>
>
> It does amuse me, though, to have a ReplyTo on a message that isn't  
> expecting a reply. Maybe that's just my warped sense of humour :-)
>
>
>
> Tony Rogers
>
> tony.rogers@ca.com
>
>
>
>
>
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws- 
> addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2005 9:59
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Self-describing Messages wrt MEPs
>
> I was thinking about Paco's desire for ReplyTo to have a desire for  
> a distinguished attribute to indicate that no response is  
> expected.  Effectively, I think that he wants messages to be self- 
> describing wrt MEPs.
>
>
>
> A one-way MEP over HTTP would be no-response for ReplyTo and FaultTo.
>
> A robust-in-only MEP over HTTP would be no-response for ReplyTo and  
> anonymous FaultTo.
>
> A request-response MEP over HTTP would be anonymous ReplyTo and  
> anonymous FaultTo.
>
>
>
> From an intermediary's perspective, it could look at the ReplyTo  
> and FaultTo to determine the MEP.
>
>
>
> It seems worth calling out, that making messages self-describing  
> from an MEP perspective hasn't been forcefully called out as a  
> requirement on WS-A to date.
>
>
>
> Another way of looking at this is that it moves the WSDL 2.0 MEP  
> functionality into WSDL 1.1 via WS-Addressing.  If you want a  
> robust in-only MEP over HTTP, you use WSDL 1.1 and then WS-A with  
> the values listed above.   This seems like it might have a side- 
> effect of hurting wsdl 2.0 adoption, in the same way the WS-I BP  
> "backporting" parts of SOAP 1.2 into SOAP 1.1 has probably hurt  
> SOAP 1.2 adoption.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.




Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 14:22:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:05 GMT