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

RE: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? it

From: Springer, Ian P. <ian.springer@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:18:56 -0400
Message-ID: <6D6463F31027B14FB3B1FB094F2C74470775DC00@tayexc17.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Katy Warr" <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
What about the case where soapAction is not a valid URI? Using it as the
default value for wsaw:Action, you end with an invalid wsa:Action (i.e.
that is not a valid xsd:anyURI).


________________________________

	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Katy Warr
	Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:06 PM
	To: Jonathan Marsh; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
	Subject: RE: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default
Action Pattern conflict? it
	
	

	Jonathan 
	I don't think it's sufficient because: 
	- Folk may not wish/be in a position to refresh their WSDL with
the wsaw:Action 
	- Why mandate the duplication of the same piece of information
in the service description when we can deduce it? 
	I don't think that this complicates things - for users of
WS-Addressing it should make things easier. 
	Katy 
	
	
	
	
"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 

10/10/2005 18:46 

To
Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org> 
cc
Subject
RE: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern
conflict? it

	




	The currently available solution is to add wsaw:Action
explicitly whenever you have a soapAction.  Isn't that a sufficient
answer?  Perhaps we could simply remind people of this solution.
Complicating our action defaulting algorithm further (by making it
depend on information in another namespace) seems to me to likely be
more confusing in the long run. 
	  

________________________________


	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Katy Warr
	Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 8:57 AM
	To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
	Subject: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default
Action Pattern conflict? 
	  
	
	I'd like to raise this as an issue. thanks 
	
	----- Forwarded by Katy Warr/UK/IBM on 10/10/2005 16:56 ----- 

	
Pete Hendry <peter.hendry@capeclear.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 

08/10/2005 04:58 



To
Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB 
cc
public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
Subject
Re: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict?

  



  	 



	
	
	
	We have already seen this problem where the requirement is to
take an already existing service and allow asynchronous calls against
request-response operations (actually, we already did async in a
proprietary config-file type way and now want to use WS-Addressing to
achieve the same thing with old WSDLs).
	
	I would agree with Katy that defaulting the input wsa:Action to
the SOAPAction if present would solve this problem. The output and fault
actions could keep their current defaults (I assume it is only the input
wsa:Action that has to match SOAPAction).
	
	Pete
	
	
	Katy Warr wrote: 
	
	What is the correct behaviour for gen'ing wsa:Action in the
client when the HTTP 1.1 SOAPAction is set ( i.e. not "") and there is
no wsaw:Action explicitly specified in the WSDL?   
	
	The problem is that, the default action pattern for wsa:Action
cannot be gauranteed to generate a wsa:action to match SOAPAction. 
	
	Here is an example to illustrate: 
	
	<binding name="StockQuoteSoapBinding"
type="tns:StockQuotePortType"> 
	<soap:binding <soap:binding>  style="document"
transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http"
<http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http>  /> 
	<wsaw:UsingAddressing wsdl:required="true" /> 
	<operation name="GetLastTradePrice"> 
	  <soap:operation <soap:operation>
soapAction="http://example.com/GetLastTradePrice"
<http://example.com/GetLastTradePrice>  /> 
	  <input> 
	    <soap:body <soap:body>  use="literal" /> 
	  </input> 
	  <output> 
	    <soap:body <soap:body>  use="literal" /> 
	  </output> 
	</operation> 
	</binding> 
	
	If we use the default action pattern to generate the wsa:Action,
this is the result for the input operation 
	http://example.com/StockQuotePortType/GetLastTradePriceInput
<http://example.com/StockQuotePortType/GetLastTradePriceInput>  
	As this is not  the same as the SOAPAction, this will cause
non-compliance.  The WSDL in this case is implicitly inconsistent with
the wsa spec - a problem which will occur in every existing WSDL 1.1 in
which the values of SOAPAction have not been constructed according to
the default action pattern. 
	
	A possible solution is to set the wsa:Action header to
SOAPAction (if SOAPAction =! "") in preference to using the default
action pattern (if the wsa:Action is not specified explicitly). 
	
	This would means a change something like this in the wsdl spec: 
	
	4.3 Default Action  Pattern for WSDL 1.1 
	In the absence of the wsa:Action attribute.... 
	==>When using the SOAP 1.1 HTTP binding, if the SOAPAction is
set, the action for inputs and outputs MUST be the same as this and the
default action pattern is not used. <== 
	
Received on Monday, 10 October 2005 20:20:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:09 GMT