- From: Glen Daniels <glen@wso2.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:38:50 -0400
- To: Nathan Sowatskey <nsowatsk@cisco.com>
- CC: "TALBOT Jacques (TJA)" <Jacques.TALBOT@teamlog.com>, "public-soap-jms@w3.org" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>, "tip-framework@lists.tmforum.org" <tip-framework@lists.tmforum.org>
Hi Nathan: Let me turn this around a bit - can you please explain (this is for Jacques/Mark too) exactly what you think should be covered in the spec? Mark's original message said "clear direction on what to do when using WS-Addressing header with SOAP/JMS"... We'll certainly cover that to some extent between the primer and the test suite (which will absolutely cover a variety of cases), but I'm not clear on just what you think should be included. Keep in mind that Addressing says "here's how you use these headers/properties to bind to various SOAP MEPs", and our binding (just like the HTTP binding) says "here's a binding that offers SOAP MEPs". Tell us what the problem is and we'll try to get it solved, or point you in the right direction at least. Thanks, --Glen Nathan Sowatskey wrote: > 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 11:40:43 UTC