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

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

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:25:42 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1CD6@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Glen wote:
> Correct.  Essentially, the only kinds of headers that are worth specifying
with the mechanism that exists today are the "cookie-esque" ones - i.e.
"please send me the value 'xq57jb' back in the header 'myns:SeekritCode'.
Oh, and send it on every single message, too."  Anything with more complex
semantics than that can't really be accommodated with the current syntax.
So I think it's a pretty simple matter to define a "sideband data" SOAP
module which simply takes a property consisting of a set of elements, and
inserts them as SOAP headers.

One problem we have with current tools is some generate application code for headers defined in WSDL whist other ignore them altogether.

I think it would useful if a toolkit could *know* if a header was intended for an application or for a lower-layer protocol ?

- could F&P be used to describe which /role/ a header is intended for ?
- or maybe headers *and* F&P would provide this distinction ?
- or am i barking ?


-- 
Paul Sumner Downey
Web Services Integration
BT Exact
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2003 05:26:01 GMT

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