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 16:06:40 +0100
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFFB66328A.6BC1CDB4-ON802571E9.005277F7-802571E9.0052CFCA@uk.ibm.com>
David

<dh> I think there was agreement that we needed a way to say "this 
endpoint understands WSA headers, but won't do anything but anonymous" 
</dh>
The question is: does anyone need to be able to indicate this via a WSDL 
marker?

Thanks
Katy




David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
14/09/2006 15:36

To
Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc
public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject
Re: CR33: Just wondering - Does anyone actually need wsaw:anonymous in 
WSDL?






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 15:04:49 GMT

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