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: Aleksander Slominski <aslom@cs.indiana.edu>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:20:31 -0500
Message-ID: <42A736EF.8090606@cs.indiana.edu>
To: paul.downey@bt.com
CC: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
paul.downey@bt.com wrote:

Alek ;-)

>for 'current best practice', you could take a look at the test cases submitted by 
>Microsoft to the WS-Addr working group:
thanks for link! however looking on WSDL used in this interop (at the 
end of the document) how one can determine that service supports 
WS-Addressing? WSA is not mentioned in the WSDL ...

>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:
unfortunately Working Draft: 2002-04-13 (looks like typo it should be 
probably 2005 in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/): Web Services 
Addressing 1.0 - WSDL Binding 
<http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/04/wd/WD-ws-addr-wsdl-20050413/> is 
not publicly available (password protected) - is there somewhere 
publicly accessible version? is it different form what i had 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-wsdl-20050413/)? is there 
something new in the latest editors' version?



>-----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" 
>        </operation>
>    </portType>
>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"
>        type="tns:WSDLInteropTestDocLitPortType">
>        <soap:binding style="document" 
>        <operation name="echoString">
>            <soap:operation soapAction="http://soapinterop.org/" 
>            <input name="echoString">
>                <soap:body 
>                    use="literal"/>
>            </input>
>            <output name="echoStringResponse">
>                <soap:body 
>                    use="literal"/>
>            </output>
>        </operation>
>    </binding>
>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
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 18:21:22 UTC

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