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: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:36:29 -0400
To: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <450968ED.2090808@tibco.com>
I thought this was more to do with anon "prohibited" than the whole
marker.  I think there was agreement that we needed a way to say "this
endpoint understands WSA headers, but won't do anything but anonymous"
(basically the SOAP layer is WSA-aware but the transport layer isn't). 
This would be the "required" value (except for the "none" thing).

That said, a policy assertion is needed to handle the more general
question of "just what addresses can I use for async responses", and it
looks like it would also handle the other use cases, including (I think)
the "required" case.

Katy Warr wrote:
>
> 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 14:36:41 GMT

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