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

Re: recap of issue 51 (was: Agenda for 5 Sept 2002 WS Description WG - recap of issue 51)

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 05 Sep 2002 12:29:08 +0200
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Liu Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <1031221748.360.37.camel@krava>

 renaming soap:body/@parts to soap:body/@part would necessitate that we
also allow multiple soap:body elements in wsdl:input|output elements,
which is not currently allowed.
 I wonder whether this is your intention?
 Best regards

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation

On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 09:28, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> I would suggest that take this opportunity to also rename 
> soap:body@partS to soap:body@part. This would allow, for example, 
> specifying different encodings for different SOAP body blocks.
> +1 to the other aspects of the proposal.
> Jean-Jacques.
> Liu, Kevin wrote:
> > 
> >>9. Issue 51: Asymmetry between soap:body and soap:header [18].  Thread
> >>starts at [19] (Kevin), continues at [20] and [21].
> > 
> > 
> > Since it has been a little while, I thought it might be helpful to provide a brief summary of discussions around this issue so far as a starting point for this agenda item:
> > 
> > 1. Restatement of issue: 
> > 
> > In wsdl1.1, when one defines a portType, one associates operation input/output/fault with a SINGLE message. Then when one defines the binding to SOAP, one specifies which parts in this message go to the soap body, which parts go as header blocks. But it leaves a few points unclear:
> > 
> > Firstly, on the one hand, soap:body assumes all parts are from the message specified in portType definition. On the other hand, soap:header has a REQUIRED message attribute. To many people, the message attribute hints that soap header can include parts from messages other than the one defined for the operation. This is one aspect of the asymmetry. The issue is:  
> > 	Should we remove soap:header@message, or at least make it optional? 
> >    
> > Secondly, on the one hand, soap:body has an attribute called "partS"  which can specify a LIST of parts to be included in the soap body. On the other hand, soap:header has an attribute called "part" which only allows specifying a SINGLE part for header.  This is the second aspect of the asymmetry. The issue is: 
> > 	Should we change soap:header@part to soap:header@parts to allow specify a LIST of parts
> > 
> > 2.  Recap of the discussions and proposed solutions:   
> > 
> > There were a few messages from Jacek and Jean-Jacques about this issue. We clarified the confusing points and seem agreed on the following proposals:
> > 
> > - Remove soap:header@message attribute. All the parts should be defined in the corresponding input/output/fault message, no matter it will goes in the body or in the header.  See jacek's rationale http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0081.html
> > 
> > - Leave soap:header@part as it is. Unlike soap body parts, each header block may have different value for attributes such as role and mustUnderstand.  so it doesn't add too much value to allow specifying a list of parts for soap:header. 
> > 
> > This brought up a related issues that should be addressed separately -  The current soap:header construct can not address header attributes role and mustUnderstand.  See more comments at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0108.html
> > 
> > Hope this will make the discussion a little easier.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Kevin
> > ------------------------------
> > Canyang Kevin Liu
> > SAP Labs, Palo Alto
> > Technology Architecture
> > 3475 Deer Creek Road
> > Palo Alto, CA 94304
> > (650) 849-5167
> > http://www.saplabs.com
> > 
> > 
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 06:29:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT