W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2005

RE: [soapbuilders] current best practice for using WS-Addressing in WSDL 1.1?

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 18:42:09 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709E3B4@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>, <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


for 'current best practice', you could take a look at the test cases submitted by 
Microsoft to the WS-Addr working group:

However, the W3C are in the process of standardising WS-Addressing and 
will be publishing a 'binding' for describing addressing in WSDL 1.1 and 2.0.
latest editors' and working drafts are available from the WG pages:


-----Original Message-----
From:	soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Aleksander Slominski
Sent:	Wed 6/8/2005 6:24 PM
To:	soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Cc:	www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject:	[soapbuilders] current best practice for using WS-Addressing in WSDL 1.1?


i wonder what is the (current) best practice to describe in WSDL 1.1 
that a service endpoint supports WS-Addressing (and in particular that 
it may send response as one-way message to ReplyTo/FaultTo address)?

i checked "Web Services Addressing 1.0 - WSDL Binding"
but i still have not idea how to do it ...

consider echo operation that takes echoString and echoStringResponse

    <portType name="WSDLInteropTestDocLitPortType">
        <operation name="echoString">
            <input message="tns:echoString" name="echoString"/>
            <output message="tns:echoStringResponse" 

how can i annotate it to indicate that output message may be 
asynchronous - or should i do this in binding as it is a transport detail?

    <binding name="WSDLInteropTestDocLitPortBinding"
        <soap:binding style="document" 
        <operation name="echoString">
            <soap:operation soapAction="http://soapinterop.org/" 
            <input name="echoString">
            <output name="echoStringResponse">

i think that for now i can use a little heuristics:  if i see 
portType/operation@wsa:Action then i successfully detected that it is 
safe to send WS-Addressing message one way with ReplyTo/FaultTo headers 
- however is it the best i can do? what about services that are 
WSA-enabled but use Default Action Pattern?

what about some general extension (feature) for WSDL 1.1 to indicate 
that one-way messaging transport is required (possible)? or that 
WS-Addressing is supported?

let me now if i missed something.



The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay

This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic. 


Yahoo! Groups Links

*	To visit your group on the web, go to:

*	To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> 

*	Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . 
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 17:42:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:54 UTC