W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2004

Re: Action item 2003-11-03 OperationName feature

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:04:46 -0500
To: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Cc: WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040122000446.B16027@www.markbaker.ca>

Hi Umit,

This looks like a very good start.  I also want to study how this
interacts with the HTTP binding, but that'll have to wait.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:03:17PM -0800, Umit Yalcinalp wrote:
> The value of the SOAP Action property,
> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/features/action/Action, is a URI that
> is constructed by using the value of the component designator that
> uniquely identifies the operation utilizing the fragment identifier
> that refers to the specific operation[2].

That assumes that SOAPAction's value is an operation name, but that
isn't necessarily the case.  It is for declaring "intent", which may
also be a *type* in some cases.

What are your thoughts regarding how this can be used when the
operation is inherited from the application protocol?  Would you
recommend a specific URI for operationName that indicates this?

As it relates to my "ambiguous interface semantics" issue[1], I think
that your specification provides a sound answer for the case when
the feature is used; that a successful response to a request message
using this feature means that the operation requested with the feature
was performed.  I guess that the general case still needs addressing
though; what if the operation is in SOAPAction, wsa:action, the
application protocol, some other header, the body (without style=rpc),
or outside the message entirely? (ouch, did I get all of them? 8-)

 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0084.html

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2004 00:10:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:28 GMT