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

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

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:56:52 +1000
Message-ID: <BEE2BD647C052D4FA59B42F5E2D946B317B63F@AUSYMS12.ca.com>
To: "Katy Warr" <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
That's an interesting question, Katy.
If we do drop wsaw:Anonymous, does the problem go away?
Or does it result in "non-anon not supported" exceptions being thrown when the WS-RM anon addresses are provided?
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS
co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C


From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Katy Warr
Sent: Thu 14-Sep-06 23:53
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: CR33: Just wondering - Does anyone actually need wsaw:anonymous in WSDL?

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).

Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 13:59:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:14 UTC