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

RE: Issue 59 alternate proposal

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 10:50:57 -0800
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D6416566557E@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, Nov 01, 2005 10:06 PM
> To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Marc Hadley; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 59 alternate proposal
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yalcinalp, Umit
> <snip/> 
> > Our proposal specifically defined how the request-response would use
> two
> > distinct HTTP connections, 202, etc.  
> 
> <snip/>
> 
> I think it's standard practice to call how a request response uses a
> protocol including the protocol status codes a "binding".
> 
> My concern with doing away with MEPs completely is exactly 
> shown by this
> proposal.  
> 
> Without any kind of protocol/lower level MEP, it is impossible to talk
> about what happens with request response without talking about a
> particular binding, in your case SOAP HTTP.  In a binding 
> extension that
> controls interaction patterns like usingAddressing, you end 
> up either a)
> not talking about meps/bindings/protocols at all, which is very
> unusable, or b) talking about a specific binding/protocol, which is
> highly undesirable from a re-use, layering, modularity, and
> "well-factoring" perspective.  Well factored and modularized design of
> specs is one of the tenets of the Web Services architecture, 
> or at least
> so it's been said.

Dear Dave, 

I am assuming that you have concerns with both proposals as they both
bypass the MEPs in a way.

I completely agree with you in sentiment and goals. Ideally, we could
have accomplished this within the parameters that you suggested.
However, I am just trying to be practical and wearing my product hat on.


We have SOAP 1.1/HTTP and SOAP 1.2/HTTP. Both of them are in scope, both
are in practice ( AFAIK people are starting to release implementations
on the latter). We have a limited time to deliver something useful that
people can interoperate on. 

We can not define MEPs for SOAP 1.1/HTTP. 

The ongoing discussions at the Async TF has demonstrated to me that
there is not really a consensus about how to layer WSDL MEPS and SOAP
MEPS and the relationship between them. Among many choices we have
discussed, 1-m mappings, getting rid of MEPs altogether, etc. Here we
are. 
 
Either WS-Addressing wg redisgns WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 and how this is
done for all possible binding, etc.  or we solve the problem with what
we have agreed with.

We spent many months in async tf. We had very good discussion,
discovered many issues. AFAIK, We did NOT reach consensus. 

I neither view our proposal as an example of the best possible
architecture there is nor will get into a debate of
"my-architecture-is-better-than-yours" since it does not apply ;-) but
the reality is I personally am looking for is concrete simple rules to
point developers to that reflects what they got consensus on: On the
wire messages for async with SOAP/HTTP. It is a simple concrete way to
solve the problem reflecting the only consensus point we had without
rearchitecting the whole stack. 

Hope the intention is clear. 


> 
> Cheers,
> Dave  

The clock is ticking, 

--umit

> 
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 18:51:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:10 GMT