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

FW: WS-Addressing comment/question related to WS-RM

From: Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:01:41 -0400
To: "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <7D5D3FDA429F4D469ADF210408D6245A0667FA@jeeves.freunds.com>



From: Bob Freund 
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:00 AM
To: 'ws-rx-comment@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: WS-Addressing comment/question related to WS-RM


As chair of WS-Addressing I am forwarding the following comment made by
one of our members:



I've been puzzling through the spaghetti of dependant specs for a while,
and haven't determined conclusively how to reconcile the WSDL in
Appendix B with the MakeConnection example in Appendix C.6.


The WSDL describes request-response operations such as CreateSequence,
with input CreateSequence and output CreateSequenceResponse messages.
While the WSDL doesn't describe a binding for this, it is easy to
imagine a straightforward way to bind this to a SOAP/HTTP


However, the MakeConnection example shows a MakeConnection message
resulting in a CreateSequence response message, which then results in a
CreateSequenceResponse messages, followed by an HTTP 202.  That is, the
first request corresponds to a one-way message (no problem here), the
first response corresponds to a request of a request-response, and the
second request corresponds to the response of a request-response.


What standard binding could be used to describe this behavior?  I can't
find any of the specs (WSDL 1.1, WSDL 2.0, WS-I BP) that explicitly say
the WSDL-described request message must be mapped to an HTTP request,
but I'm also not aware of any implementation that allows requests to be
mapped to anything else.  Is this just a too-obvious-to-state loophole
or am I missing something?"




Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 15:02:01 UTC

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