W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > February 2007

FW: Message Dispatching Primer Section

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:20:46 -0800
To: "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <018201c74636$16ef5370$3501a8c0@DELLICIOUS>

Thank you for this comment.  The Working Group this issue as a CR127 [1].

The Working Group closed this issue as a duplicate of CR134 [2], which added
a paragraph to the primer addressing this issue.  You can see the resolution
implemented in the latest editor's draft [3].

Unless you let us know otherwise within two weeks, we will assume you agree
with the resolution of these issues.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR127
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR134
[3]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html#a
dv-message-dispatch

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Youenn Fablet
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 5:43 AM
To: www-ws-desc
Subject: Message Dispatching Primer Section


Reading section 5.1 in the primer, it is written that assigning unique 
QNames of GED as inputs within the interface of the service is 
sufficient to disambiguate the types of the messages that are received.

While this is certainly true for a typical SOAP service that uses the 
Request/Response mep, this is not the case when the SOAP/Response mep is 
used.
In that case, the GED QName is not sent in the message, only the 
subchildren local names are sent in the url.
It would be easy to have two different GED QNames with the same 
subchildren local names.
I do not know whether we should improve the primer, but this might be 
worth noting it anyway.

The same kind of issue also arises with the HTTP binding.
In this case, the dispatching may be done according the url, the method, 
the content-type and possibly other bits of information.
This flexibility is good if we are going from a service to a WSDL document.
In a typical WSDL first situation, it may however be hard for authors 
and tools to check that message dispatching will never be ambiguous.
A few guidelines may help with that respect.

Any thoughts?
    Youenn
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2007 19:20:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:33 GMT