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: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:01:57 +0100
To: Tony.Rogers@ca.com
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFAF302857.64894FC7-ON802571E9.004D2825-802571E9.0052613A@uk.ibm.com>
Hi Tony,

The question that I'm raising is:
Do any implementations require the ability to specify partial endpoint 
support *via a WSDL marker*? 

If the answer is no, then the problem of CR 33 remains if we need to 
support this in the form of policy.  Assuming that we *do* require policy 
support, it's then being solved in fewer places which must be good for 
both spec and implementations. 

There's less of a problem with the fault solution because the endpoint 
could just return a fault like "response EPR URI unsupported fault" 
specifying the URI.   I doubt that we'll need to worry about the fault 
solution anyhow.  If folk need this, policy is probably a better bet. 


"Rogers, Tony" <> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
14/09/2006 14:56

Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

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

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 15:00:16 UTC

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