W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > January 2007

Re: retaining the {addressing} property?

From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:37:20 +0000
To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org, "Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com>
Message-ID: <OF9C37374A.722F451A-ON8025725F.00483BCF-8025725F.004AD2F1@uk.ibm.com>

I'm afraid my WSDL 2.0 and Policy Attachment for WSDL 2.0 knowledge isn't 
up to much.

It appears from WS-Policy Attachment [1] that the Addressing assertion 
will appear as part of the {policy} property of the relevant WSDL 
component. That may mean that we can reference that property to define 
where to look for the assertion... but the fact that the value then 
appears twice in component model and only once in the XML seems strange. 
My impression of WSDL 2.0 is that it's expected that an extensibility 
property maps to an extensibility element or attribute.

This makes me wonder if we should be removing the {addressing} WSDL 2.0 
component model property. Can any WSDL 2.0 experts out there comment on 
this? Jonathan?

Sorry Tony, not an answer to the question you asked,


David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP211, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)

"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
David Illsley/UK/IBM@IBMGB
01/10/2007 10:48 AM
retaining the {addressing} property?

We are removing the UsingAddressing WSDL marker. I naively assumed that 
meant removing the entire section 3.1. Upon more detailed study, I am 
fairly sure that that is NOT the case.
Do we intend to retain the {addressing} property which 3.1.1 introduced as 
an extension to the WSDL 2.0 component model? I suspect that we need to do 
Should we describe how the presence / absence / wsp:Optional-ness of the 
wsam:Addressing assertion affects the {addressing} property? It can be 
done, but I'd appreciate some help in phrasing it. Perhaps some words 
along the line of:
The {addressing} property is present if the wsam:Addressing assertion is 
present. The value of the property is "required" is the only policy 
alternatives present include this assertion, without the 
wsp:Optional="true" attribute . The value of the property is "optional" if 
there are policy alternatives that include this assertion, and 
alternatives which do not include it, or if it is marked with the 
wsp:Optional="true" attribute.
I'd really appreciate a Policy-literate person rephrasing that in 
legitimate Policy language :-) Should I separate the discussion of 
alternatives with and without the assertion from discussion of 
Do we also retain Table 3-1 showing the effect of the {addressing} 
property? I think this table, plus the discusson of what must be present 
for the message to be compliant, belongs in a separate section, placed 
after the discussion of how the property is set. The current layout 
confuses things, because it mixes the defining of the property with the 
effects of the property, thus clouding the discussion of the SOAP module's 
ability to affect the same property.
So I think we should have 3.1 specifying the policy assertions, and their 
effect on the {addressing} property, then 3.2 specifying the SOAP module, 
and its effect on the {addressing} property, then 3.3 describing the 
{addressing} property and the presence/absence of MAPs in the message.
Does that make sense?
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 16:53:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:15 UTC