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

Re: "operation name" .. an alternate proposal

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:02:47 -0700
Message-ID: <40EEDDC7.8060900@oracle.com>
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org



Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:

>
> 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). 


Hi  Jean-Jacques,

You are actually pointing out the specific problem that I have with this 
proposal.

The whole purpose of the two proposals is to explore a way to make 
operation name to be ALWAYS available however it is implemented. In 
order to guarantee this, we need to make sure that it appears on the 
wire with an extension (WS-MD, etc), with a feature, even with SOAP 
Action if the web service that describes the WSDL "requires" it. 
Sanjiva's proposal has the following consequences:

-- The  moment we require in the binding that the optional parameter to 
be present, we are ultimately declaring that the parameter MUST always 
be present. Otherwise, since as it is optional as you also point out, it 
may not appear on the wire.

-- The moment we accept that is it optional, although SOAP works ok, the 
OperationName is no longer a feature that is always enabled. Therefore, 
clients and servers can not rely on it. We are back to square one.

Again, the whole purpose of solving this problem is interoperability. We 
will not gain anything.Not only that, we will make something in the SOAP 
1.2 spec implicitly required for all web services. It is simply not 
acceptable from my point of view.

-

>
>
> JJ.

--umit

>
> 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. 
>
>
>
>

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 14:03:42 GMT

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