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

Re: New Issue: Allow for runtime override of WSDL address when generating [destination] MAP [i070]

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:03:51 -0800
Message-Id: <3A86423A-A161-47A0-A97B-7626229223B1@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
To: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
This is now i070;
   http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i070


On 2006-01-05, at 9:35 AM, Katy Warr wrote:

>
> Please could I raise this as an issue:
>
> The WS-A WSDL spec appears to be too restrictive wrt [destination]  
> MAP.
> We need to relax the wording of section 4.1 in order to allow for  
> runtime overrides of the WSDL address.
>
> Katy
>
> ----- Forwarded by Katy Warr/UK/IBM on 05/01/2006 17:30 -----
> Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB
> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> 03/01/2006 12:46
>
> To
> umit.yalcinalp@sap.com, Tony.Rogers@ca.com, public-ws- 
> addressing@w3.org
> cc
> Subject
> RE: [destination] MAP and WSDL address
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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


--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 23:21:01 GMT

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