RE: Issue i020 - Addressing and WSDL

Hi Anish,

While "Nothing precludes the use of other binding extensions with WSDL" I am not sure that developing other bindings for WSDL is something we want to do.  Yet we may very well want to use Addressing not with HTTP (or even SOAP).  Would using the WSDL definitions of Endpoint preclude this or make our work more difficult?


-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of ext Anish
Sent: December 20, 2004 01:54 AM
Subject: Issue i020 - Addressing and WSDL

It is unclear to me exactly what EPR are trying to represent?
Is an EPR a reference to an "endpoint" or a service? If so, WSDL 2.0 
defines an Endpoint as well. This Endpoint is not very different from 
wsdl11:port. What is the relationship between a WSDL Endpoint and an EPR?

An EPR allows, in fact, to include (optionally) a service endpoint/port. 
If such an endpoint/port is included in an EPR, what is the relationship 
between the value of the [address] property and the URI value in the 
[service-port] property?

At the very least the use of the term 'endpoint' in WS-A is confusing 
because of the use of the same term in WSDL.

The WS-Addressing submission, section 2 [1] does say some about this:

Because of the current limits of the WSDL 1.1 extensibility model, the 
WSDL 1.1 service and port elements cannot be used to cover the use cases 
listed above. Endpoint references logically extend the WSDL description 
model (e.g., portTypes, bindings, etc.), but do not replace it. Endpoint 
references will be used instead of WSDL <service/> elements in the 
following cases:

     * Specific instances of a stateful service need to be identified or 
its instance-specific configuration details need to be transmitted.

     * A lightweight, self-contained description of a service endpoint 
needs to be communicated. In particular, this may be necessary when the 
details of the endpoint configuration are already shared by the 
communicating parties, but specific policy information needs to be added 
or updated, typically as a result of a dynamic configuration process.

Endpoint references complement and do not replace the WSDL/1.1 
<wsdl:service> element. We expect solutions built on WSDL/1.1 to 
continue to utilize a service element. Moving forward we anticipate that 
endpoint references and WSDL will evolve coherently. The endpoint 
references may link to service elements in WSDL/1.1, and support 
additional scenarios in which the WSDL information is not known by a 
party processing a message. These scenarios may include dynamic 
messaging or limited capability message processors.

WSDL 2.0 certainly has the extensibility that WS-Addressing needs. Wrt 
to WSDL 1.1, Service/port elements are extensible via elements as well 
as attributes. In face WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 [2] makes all the elements 
in the WSDL 1.1 namespace extensible via elements as well as attributes. 
So I don't see how WSDL extensibility comes in the way of reusing WSDL 
elements in WS-Addressing.

EPR is essentially a service reference. I would like to understand the 
constraints/requirements that led to the creation of additional 
syntactic structures rather than the reuse of existing structure. 
Specifically, I would like to understand why the wsdl service element 
cannot be used here instead of wsa:EndpointReference ?



Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 13:45:21 UTC