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

Re: [destination] MAP and WSDL address

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:26:59 -0800
Message-ID: <43C2B903.50406@oracle.com>
To: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
CC: umit.yalcinalp@sap.com, Tony.Rogers@ca.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Katy,

Your concern is about the scenario when the 'location' URI is changed at 
runtime and therefore you don't want the [destination] property to be 
constrained by the value in the WSDL. Right?

But in that case, you would not be using that port defined in the WSDL 
(which fixes the value of the 'location'), you would be using some other 
port that is defined elsewhere or generated only at runtime.

-Anish
--

Katy Warr wrote:
> 
> Umit
> 
> <uy>It seems that we could relax the language to allow the override with 
> careful wording by requiring the destination to always contain a 
> meaningful value (i.e. non anonymous) unless it is a response message.</uy>
> Actually, that wasn't the intent of my initial note.  Whether (or not) 
> we allow the [destination] to be anonymous/blank is probably not 
> specific to the WSDL spec and so (I believe that) this should not drive 
> the direction of this text.  Incidentally, although the text we have in 
> the core/soap does not explicitly prevent the destination from being 
> blank/anon on requests, we state in the core spec that the anonymous URI 
> is for endpoints which cannot have a meaningful IRI assigned - this is 
> probably sufficient to prevent its mis-use.
> 
> I agree that we need to relax the wording of section 4.1 (but without 
> worrying about the anonymous case).  One possibility would be to change 
> the text to allow the [destination] to differ from the WSDL address in 
> some cases.  For example, the addition of the text 'In the absence of 
> any additional information' below:
> 
>  >> 4.1 Destination
>  >>
>  >> In the absence of any additional information,
>  >> the value of the [destination] message addressing property for a 
> message sent to an endpoint MUST match the
>  >> value of the {address} property of the endpoint component (WSDL 2.0) 
> or the address value provided by the relevant
>  >> port extension (WSDL 1.1). For a SOAP 1.1 port described using WSDL 
> 1.1, the value is provided by the location
>  >> attribute of the soap11:address extension element.
> 
> or, alternatively explicitly state 'or its runtime override' like this:
> 
>  >> 4.1 Destination
>  >>
>  >> In the case of WSDL 2.0, the value of the [destination] message 
> addressing property for a message sent to an endpoint MUST match the
>  >> value of the {address} property of the endpoint component or its 
> runtime override.
>  >> In the case of WSDL 1.1, the value of the [destination] message 
> addressing property for a message sent to an endpoint MUST match the
>  >> value of or the address value provided by the relevant
>  >> port extension (WSDL 1.1) or its runtime override. For a SOAP 1.1 
> port described using WSDL 1.1, the value is provided by the location
>  >> attribute of the soap11:address extension element.
> 
> Katy
> 
> 
> 
> *"Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>*
> 
> 21/12/2005 23:33
> 
> 	
> To
> 	"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB, 
> <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	RE: [destination] MAP and WSDL address
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For an request message (not the response) the destination value (either 
> as it appears in WSDL or after being overridden) must not be anonymous. 
> The anonymous URI is simply not meaningful as there is no destination to 
> send the first message to.
>  
> --umit
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com] *
> Sent:* Wednesday, Dec 21, 2005 1:30 PM*
> To:* Yalcinalp, Umit; Katy Warr; public-ws-addressing@w3.org*
> Subject:* RE: [destination] MAP and WSDL address
> 
> That sounds like a good idea. Perhaps we should require that it contain 
> a meaningful value, and suggest that in many?most?normal?common? cases 
> this value would be ...
>  
> Tony
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Yalcinalp, Umit*
> Sent:* Thu 22-Dec-05 7:07*
> To:* Katy Warr; public-ws-addressing@w3.org*
> Subject:* RE: [destination] MAP and WSDL address
> 
> Katy,
>  
> We made them dependent in order for the values to be driven by WSDL. 
> Further, we wanted the destination to always contain a value (unless it 
> is an anonymous response). The intent was not to prevent the override, 
> but to require a "value" for the destination to be present unless it is 
> a synchronous response. The problem is due to mapping destination 
> property (mandatory) to wsa:To (optional). The wsa:To is optional only 
> when the destination is anonymous (hence synchronous response).
>  
> The case you are referring to does not pertain to the synchronous 
> response but to the destination property which is intended for the 
> request message to be sent. I do not think we deliberately wanted to 
> prevent the override in this case. That is my recollection anyway.
>  
> It seems that we could relax the language to allow the override with 
> careful wording by requiring the destination to always contain a 
> meaningful value (i.e. non anonymous) unless it is a response message.
>  
> --umit
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Katy Warr*
> Sent:* Wednesday, Dec 21, 2005 3:34 AM*
> To:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org*
> Subject:* [destination] MAP and WSDL address
> 
> 
> The WS-A WSDL spec appears to be too restrictive wrt [destination] MAP.  
> 
> Here is the text:
> 
>  >> 4.1 Destination
>  >>
>  >> The value of the [destination] message addressing property for a 
> message sent to an endpoint MUST match the
>  >> value of the {address} property of the endpoint component (WSDL 2.0) 
> or the address value provided by the relevant
>  >> port extension (WSDL 1.1). For a SOAP 1.1 port described using WSDL 
> 1.1, the value is provided by the location
>  >> attribute of the soap11:address extension element.
> 
> However, there are scenarios where the WSDL address is overridden at 
> runtime
> by the programming model (for example: JAX-RPC targetEndpointAddress).
> The mandating of the [destination] MAP to the WSDL address in the above 
> text does not allow for override.  
> It forces the [destination] to be the development-time WSDL address 
> rather than an updated runtime address.  
> 
> Looking back at the issue that generated this text, I wondered whether 
> the intent was that the [destination] should be
> derived from the WSDL address only in the absence of additional 
> information (as proposal 1 of the issue below)?
> 
> This text was a result of issue 56:
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i056
> It was resolved with option 1 from the f2f minutes:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/0001
> The text for option 1 is:
>  >> The [destination] property is taken from the endpoint or port address -
>  >> derived address (WSDL 2.0) or the applicable WSDL 1.1 extension (for
>  >> SOAP it is taken from soap:address/@location). ...
> 
> Before opening this as an issue, what are other folk's opinions?
> 
> Thanks
> Katy
Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 19:27:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT