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

Re: "operation name" .. an alternate proposal

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:26:34 +0200
To: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <40EE56BA.9040602@crf.canon.fr>

I think it's in fact a little more subtle that this. As you correctly 
point out, per the SOAP 1.2 spec, the ultimate receiver should NOT 
require the presence of the action parameter. This would still be the 
case with Sanjiva's proposal, I think. His proposal (the WSDL) would 
instruct the initial SOAP sender to indeed set the action parameter. But 
would it decide that it does NOT, the ultimate SOAP receiver would STILL 
happily accept and process the incoming SOAP message. So the SOAP 1.2 
processing model would still be applied (at least its shape, if not its 
intent).

JJ.

Umit Yalcinalp wrote (snip):

> However, here is my big problem with yours:
>
> SOAP 1.2 Part2 specification indicates that SOAP Action feature is 
> required to be supported by the HTTP binding  [2]. However, the action 
> parameter is OPTIONAL per the same specification, A 3. See the 
> following paragraph:
>
> "Use of the action parameter is OPTIONAL. SOAP Receivers MAY use it as 
> a hint to optimize processing, but SHOULD NOT require its presence in 
> order to operate."
>
> Therefore, your proposal makes the optional parameter required as it 
> will require the wssoap:action attriibutes to appear. Since the 
> OperationName feature is a required feature, this will force the 
> OPTIONAL parameter to be REQUIRED for all cases. 
Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 04:27:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT