W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > October 2003

Re: PROPOSAL: Drop interface/operation/(input|output)/@headers

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:42:16 -0700
Message-ID: <3F99AAC8.6070105@oracle.com>
To: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Cc: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


Tom Jordahl wrote:

>>but I don't think that's a path the WG will like to
>>go on because it'll dramatically complicate WSDL for everyone.
>>[Tom, where are you? ;-)]
>>    
>>
>
>Here I am.  
>
>I agree we do not want to dramatically extend the functionality of header.
>
>BUT, I do not think I am currently in favor of removing WSDLs ability to specify headers as part of the contract for a web service.  In point of fact, I am very happy that the header syntax we have in the current draft is fairly simple and straightforward, way better than in 1.1.
>  
>
I agree.

>Would it really fly to remove the ability to specify the contents of a <soap:header> element in SOAP requests via WSDL?  This seems like a major step backwards.  And one that we are sure to get violent objection to when we go to last call.
>  
>
+1. A violent agrement on this one.

>
>If my service needs headers, how to I tell consumers of my service what they look like (and which operations they go with) if not in WSDL?
>
I have the same concerns that you do.

>
>I can think of a LOT more likely candidates for removal than this feature.  (Attributes come to mind.... :-( )
>
Ah, a violent disagreement on this one. :-)

>
>--
>Tom Jordahl
>Macromedia Server Development
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
>Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 1:34 PM
>To: Umit Yalcinalp
>Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Drop interface/operation/(input|output)/@headers
>
>
>"Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> writes:
>  
>
>>I have one "naive" question about your proposal.
>>
>>I can envision two different use cases for headers, application specific 
>>and middleware introduced. For the latter, one can envision using 
>>properties and features (as has been discussed in this thread) and/or 
>>specific specs that deal with a specific feature (which is the case 
>>today with WS-* specs).
>>
>>However, I am not clear on what options we are leaving to applications 
>>that would like to define headers. Can you clarify this if we were to 
>>remove headers?
>>    
>>
>
>In our internal discussions, we've concluded that even when 
>applications do introduce headers, that is done as a result of
>some policy being applied. Thus, just having a mechanism to 
>declare a header isn't enough - one has to say what the 
>lifecycle of that header is, what scope it has (not share
>across operations, shared across some ops, shared across all
>ops etc.). 
>
>In other words, the mechanism in the current draft is woefully
>inadequate to describe headers. Extending the functionality is
>an option, but I don't think that's a path the WG will like to
>go on because it'll dramatically complicate WSDL for everyone.
>[Tom, where are you? ;-)]
>
>Hence our proposal that headers be dropped and left in the
>domain of policies to introduce and describe the semantics / 
>lifecycle of.
>
>My apologies for the delay in replying.
>
>Sanjiva.
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Friday, 24 October 2003 18:42:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT