W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Higher-level support for SOAP extensions/modules

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:05:22 -0800
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC1065B690E@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I added R113 with Jonathan's wording to Section 4.3 Interface
Description of the next draft of the requirements document. As worded,
it is a specialization of R021: The description language must describe
the messages accepted and generated by the Web Service.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Marsh 
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 9:05 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: Higher-level support for SOAP extensions/modules

How about this wording?

"It must be possible to describe which SOAP features are offered or
required by an operation or a service."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Ballinger [mailto:keithba@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 7:46 PM
> To: Glen Daniels; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Higher-level support for SOAP extensions/modules
> I agree that we need this requirement. In fact, WSDL 1.1 let's you put
> extensibility elements into the binding, and explicitly states that
> do not need to describe each header specifically.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@macromedia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 3:57 AM
> To: 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'
> Subject: REQ: Higher-level support for SOAP extensions/modules
> Hi all!
> Got up early this morning, and had a little time to read over the
> current requirements doc.  I was a bit dismayed not to find one of my
> pet issues there, namely the mechanism by which WSDL supports SOAP
> extensions... so, no time like the present to make a suggestion. :)
> At present, it is possible with WSDL 1.1 to specify particular headers
> which should be included with particular messages.  This was, I
> a reasonable first stab at integrating headers with a description
> language, but it falls far short of being able to support the kind of
> rich semantic additions that are going to be coming down the line as
> SOAP extensions over the next few months/years.
> Without going into too much detail, I'd like to see us require the
> ability to specify that a particular SOAP "module" is offered by, or
> required by, particular services or operations.  SOAP 1.2 (part 1, sec
> 3) discusses the concept of SOAP "features", which are semantic
> extensions named with a URI and implemented by either SOAP extensions
> (headers) or bindings.  Bindings already have a requirement for URI
> naming, and I'm attempting to push for extensions to do the same.
> we have URIs for such things, it becomes possible to say something
> "this operation supports the
> 'http://www.w3.org/2002/06/reliable-message' extension", which would
> imply some set of headers/exchanges mandated by that specification.
> It's unclear to me as to whether we would require a schema description
> of every possible header which such an extension might produce, but
> that's another facet of this which we should discuss.
> This is also a potentially complex issue in that it gets into
> where messages that are not actually specified directly in the WSDL
> become part of the exchange due to the extension specs, but I think we
> need to figure this stuff out if we hope to live in a world with true
> "orthogonal extensibility" and some hope of negotiation/interop.
> Thanks,
> --Glen
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 15:09:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:37 UTC