W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > January 2006

Re: proposed breaking change to echo global element declaration

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:37:55 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0601031237n1760aad4p1958af59946d361@mail.gmail.com>
To: "paul.downey@bt.com" <paul.downey@bt.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org, public-ws-addressing@w3.org

On 1/3/06, paul.downey@bt.com <paul.downey@bt.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> > Whatever the resolution, I hope that the need for additional
> > out-of-band agreement (other than what is defined in the SOAP & WSDL
> > specs) is documented as an interoperability problem.
> I'm unsure what OOB agreement is needed - the issue is that the
> same element 'echo' being used for the input and output, an
> endpoint acting as both the sender and receiver roles can only use
> Action to distinguish if the echo is a request or a response.
> In practice, an endpoint is unlikely be operating as both 'client'
> and 'server', 'publisher' and 'subscriber' etc. so changing the
> message body element to be also unique relaxes the requirement
> artificially placed upon implementations to process based upon
> wsa:Action rather than the message contents or even some
> combination of the two.
> As far as the sender is concerned, they only need to populate
> the wsa:Action and body fields as directed by the WSDL, EPR or
> whatever and all is well.

Ok, that's a bit different than what I thought you were describing
earlier.  I agree that additional out-of-band agreement isn't being

However, if the test is remedied to your liking, it seems that all
that's being tested is WS-A + GED-dispatching, in which case I have to
ask the question just asked by Simon; what's wsa:Action for?

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2006 20:38:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:12 UTC