W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > October 2006

RE: Header blocks in wrpc:signature

From: Jason T. Greene <jason.greene@jboss.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:33:32 -0500
Message-ID: <C2CDEFBECFC9A14892BCCFB4C95F48680ABDF1D6@EX-201.mail.navisite.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

I understand there is no time, however I disagree with the Working Group
for the following reasons:

1. The purpose of rpc:signature is to provide programming language
implementation details.  Thus, it can't really be called an abstract
definition.

2. Formalized Out-of-band data is a common concept in many protocols and
is not necessarily concrete. In other words, this is not specific to
soap headers; it can be mapped to many different protocol elements. I
just used headers as a common example.

3. This is a loss of functionality from WSDL 1.1, which will most likely
force proprietary extensions to WSDL 2.0.

-Jason

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jonathan@wso2.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 4:03 PM
> To: Jason T. Greene
> Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Header blocks in wrpc:signature
> 
> Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked
this
> issue as CR082 [1].
> 
> The Working Group felt that the current best practice has evolved away
> from
> including headers in the signature.  The current rpc:signature
definition
> is
> an interface (abstract) construct, headers are a binding (concrete)
> construct, and to mix the two layers could have negative consequences
on
> the
> reusability of either part.
> 
> Perhaps most importantly, at this point in our process, it is hard to
add
> new functionality without slipping our already-far-too-long schedule.
The
> Working Group thus did not introduce any changes in the spec in
response.
> 
> Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of September, we will
assume
> you
> agree with the resolution of this issue.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR082
> 
> 
> Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com -
> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> > comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason T. Greene
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:44 PM
> > To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: Header blocks in wrpc:signature
> >
> >
> > Several toolkits allow for the mapping of a SOAP header to a
parameter,
> > this is not allowed by the current description of wrpc:signature in
> > section 4.1.1.
> >
> > Would it be possible to clarify this to allow for root elements that
are
> > out of message bounds as specified by the appropriate binding
extension?
> > This would allow for both http and soap headers.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Jason
> >
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Jason T. Greene
> > Senior Software Engineer
> > JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> 
Received on Friday, 20 October 2006 22:33:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:32 GMT