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

Re: Proposal: Uniqueness on the Wire Requirement for WSDL 2.0

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:59:46 +0600
Message-ID: <0c6901c39dc0$5614c7f0$36356a20@lankabook2>
To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

+1 .. I have to say that WSDL deciding whether the message QName
is the service selector or the URL or something else is not right.

I remember asking about this when we implemented IBM SOAP, before
SOAP 1.1 was released. I too was looking for a specific thing to
be tagged as the "key" to routing messages (URL, SOAPAction or
first body element NS URI) - eventually it turns out that different
implementations can choose to route off different of these and
that's completely ok. What's necesssary is that clients be able
to form a proper envelope and send it to the right address. Whether
the server calls a magician to decide which service to invoke or
whether it requires unique element QNames so that it can route or
whether it uses a SOAP header that its clients are expected to put
on (and it presumably conveyed to the world via policy or however)
is up to that.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>; "Amelia A. Lewis"
<alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:50 AM
Subject: RE: Proposal: Uniqueness on the Wire Requirement for WSDL 2.0


>
> > From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:anne@manes.net]
> >
> > While I agree with you, I'm certain that WS-I will define a constraint
> > that
> > wire signatures must be unique.
>
> The future may not resemble the past.
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2003 20:57:57 GMT

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