Re: RE : WS-Addressing

Hi all

The question of how WS-Addressing relates to the SOAP/JMS binding is also
important to us, both at Cisco NMTG for our use of WSDM, and at the TMF TIP
for reasons related to mapping MTOSI headers to WS-Addressing.

I can understand the WG's desire to avoid having to specify this in the
SOAP/JMS the binding, but I hope that this does not cause ambiguity as a
consequence. I don't believe that a FAQ entry is sufficient, though that
could be a useful first step.

I expect that a this would require a normative addendum, which perhaps we
could start planning for now?

Many thanks

Nathan


On 06/08/2008 16:13, "TALBOT Jacques (TJA)" <Jacques.TALBOT@teamlog.com>
wrote:

> +1
> Great, the cavalry to the rescue, two of us are now asking !
> The FAQ "disclaimer" does not sound as a very exciting solution.
> This is like the classical bureaucracy story: you ask Bureau 23, they tell
> you, it is not us, ask bureau 54 and so on and so forth :-)
>  
> Jacques
>                 
> ___________________________________________
> Jacques.Talbot@teamlog.com  Mobile: 06 07 83 42 00
> 
> De : public-soap-jms-request@w3.org [public-soap-jms-request@w3.org] de la
> part de Mark R Maxey [Mark_R_Maxey@raytheon.com]
> Date d'envoi : mercredi 6 août 2008 11:46
> À : public-soap-jms@w3.org
> Objet : WS-Addressing
> 
> 
> I've tried to follow the WS-Addressing discussion, so I'm sorry if I'm
> rehashing old ground ...
> 
> Did anyone consider leaving some properties abstract in this document and
> creating other documents with concrete mappings to JMS headers &
> WS-Addressing?  Is there going to be a addendum or note that speaks to
> WS-Addressing? 
> 
> I'd like to see clear direction on what to do when using WS-Addressing header
> with SOAP/JMS.  There's ambiguity and overlap to be addressed.  WS-Addressing
> also includes some metadata not available via JMS, e.g., FaultTo.
> 
> Perhaps I'm misguided, but I thought the beauty of SOAP was that the same
> message could be sent over HTTP or JMS without modification.  That concept is
> broken if one is forced to use protocol specific metadata.  I would like to
> see a SOAP/JMS or SOAP/HTTP where properties of protocols are configured via
> the WSDL,  web services infrastructure "binds" to protocols at the transport
> layer, and the creation and processing of message content is 100% based on the
> XML SOAP payload.  This allows web service implementations to minimize the
> amount of protocol specific code.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark Maxey
>

Received on Friday, 15 August 2008 03:48:33 UTC