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: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:38:18 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF05E2010F@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>

I've formed the view that the body is for the application, headers are for intermediaries - but i have to admit that it's a 'lowest common denominator' decision i've hit on following practical difficulties exchanging headers with some of the current toolkits ..

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr]
Sent: 29 October 2003 13:31
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
Cc: 'Umit Yalcinalp'; www-ws-desc@w3.org; FABLET Youenn
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Drop interface/operation/(input|output)/@headers



Let's try the following analogy: would you always put all of your 
program into a single main() function? Probably not. I contend the same 
is true for the body.

My concern is that we broke (part of) our model when we removed message 
parts (sic). At the abstract/interface layer, as you suggest, I should 
indeed be able to describe my application data as a single, large 
complex type. However, I am currently unable to say, later in the 
binding, that part of this complex type is serialized as a header and 
the rest as the body.

Instead, currently, I have to model my application data as two, 
independent complex types, and refer to the first for the header and to 
the second for the body. However, this seems to break the layering you 
are suggesting.

Am I missing something obvious?

JJ.

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> writes:
> 
>>It may be a matter of taste if the corresponding WSDL should mirror that 
>>  separation of concerns, i.e. headers only in the binding, not in the 
>>interface.
> 
> 
> Its not a matter of taste to me but rather a matter of principle;
> the abstraction should support thinking about the data involved and
> if there's a need for headers just insert them using soap:header.
> 
> 
>>To make things more concrete, let's suppose my application deals with 
>>two complex types, one of which I want to serialize as a SOAP body, the 
>>other as a SOAP header block.
> 
> 
> See that's the wrong place to start IMO- applications don't start by
> thinking about two pieces of data and where they come from the SOAP
> envelope. If the app has two pieces of data, then the solution is
> to send both as payload. If in sending that it needs to indicate 
> some additional headers to be sent, then use soap:header to do it.
> 
> 
>>With your proposal, how would I do this?
> 
> 
> If the 2nd piece of data is indeed a SOAP header, then put a soap:header
> element in the binding to insert that header and put only the first 
> guy as the payload.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 08:39:24 GMT

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