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

CR33: Just wondering - Does anyone actually need wsaw:anonymous in WSDL?

From: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:53:22 +0100
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF16D83DA3.3E323E29-ON802571E9.00493B91-802571E9.004C198F@uk.ibm.com>
I'd like to raise the question:

         ** Does anyone actually need the <wsaw:anonymous> marker in the 
WSDL Binding spec? **

You may recall this being discussed at the tokyo F2F and it resulted in a 
very close vote.  I believe people voted for it because the long term 
implications/complications weren't appreciated.  We took the attitude - 
"it's not complicated and might be useful for legacy apps, so why not?" 
Now we have more information and can appreciate the complexities of this 
flag, it might be appropriate to revisit this decision. 

Here's a proposal:
1) Remove the wsaw:anonymous flag from the WSDL Binding spec entirely. 
2) If required, endpoints can indicate their lack of support for either 
non-anonymous responses or anonymous responses via a runtime fault or 
policy assertion (which we can consider separately from the WSDL marker).

regards
Katy
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 13:51:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:14 GMT