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 12:04:08 -0400
To: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <45097D78.2020903@tibco.com>
Katy Warr wrote:
>
> 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?
I don't know, but I think it's a very pertinent question.  As I thought
over how to resolve Doug's issue, it wasn't long before it felt like I
was re-inventing WS-Policy.
>
> 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 16:04:32 GMT

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