Re: [WS-Addressing] issue concerning reliable One-Way MEP detection

I would have thought that a wsa:replyTo element containing the child  
<wsa:Address> http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none</wsa:Address>  
could be used to infer a one-way message.
-bob

On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:05 AM, sylvain.marie@fr.schneider-electric.com  
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have been working for the fast few years on Devices Profile for  
> Web Services (DPWS) specification, and especially on an  
> implementation (https://forge.soa4d.org/). DPWS 1.0 was originally  
> referring to WSA member's submission, while DPWS 1.1 specification  
> has now moved to WS-Addressing 1.0.
>
> WS-Addressing specifies how messages corresponding to different  
> Message Exchange Patterns (MEP) are sent. However it does not seem  
> to specify a reliable way to detect which MEP is actually in use. In  
> particular the One-Way MEP may not be detected reliably, which  
> prevents devices to make any optimisation (for example, send the  
> empty HTTP response for SOAP/HTTP binding). The only alternative is  
> to inspect the actionUri and refer to a service's WSDL in order to  
> retrieve the appropriate MEP.
>
> In DPWS implementations we think that the driver should be able to  
> implement the default processing chain without necessary knowing  
> about the web services deployed on top of it. We first thought about  
> using the absence of "replyTo" as a good indicator for a One-Way MEP  
> but since WS-Addressing 1.0 this does not work any more, as replyTo  
> always have a default value ("anonymous"). No we are thinking about  
> using the absence of "messageId" as a clue to detectt One-Way MEPs  
> but this is clearly a hack and not something we may rely on in he  
> future.
>
> What is the opinion of WS-Addressing's WG about this ? Thank you  
> very much in advance,
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Sylvain
>
> <0F385492.jpg>	Sylvain MARIÉ
> Embedded Software Engineer
> sylvain.marie@schneider-electric.com
> +33 (0)4 76 57 67 31 / 34 67 31
>