- From: <michael.eder@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:58:20 -0500
- To: <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Hi Anish, et. al. My question is do we want to not just make an editorial changes in the core spec. The current language is: "An identifier that uniquely (and opaquely) identifies the semantics implied by this message." Maybe it should be "An identifier used to identify the semantics implied by this message" Then add some language to say the identifier SHOULD uniquely (and opaquely) identify the semantics implied by this message. - Michael -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext Anish Karmarkar Sent: December 20, 2004 12:59 AM To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org Subject: Issue i017 - Purpose of the Action property -- my action item During the 2004-12-13 I took an AI to send an email out to the ML regd issue i017. Going through the archives of the mailing list I see that I had already sent an email regarding this (on nov 15th). It is located at [1]. To recap that email: 1) The [action] property is supposed to uniquely identify the semantics implied by the message. Since the value of this property is fixed by the WSDL description (either through the defaulting mechanism or through the use of wsa:Action attribute), this value is really per message type within an MEP/operation/transmission primitive. Note that there are semantics associated with the MEP/operation grouping within an interface/portType as well as semantics associated with the individual input/output/fault message defined in WSDL. Why is it necessary to provide a mechanism, specifically the wsa:Action attribute, which overrides the default (where the default algorithm does produce a unique value)? What is the usecase for this? At the very least identical (wsa:Action) attribute values should be disallowed, otherwise the [action] property will not uniquely identify the semantics implied by the message (type). 2) There is a operation name mapping requirement in WSDL 2.0 [2]. Given that we have resolved issue i031 to make [action] property required, I see the [action] property can be used to satisfy the operation name mapping requirement. WS-Addressing WSDL 2.0 binding should define how this is done. HTH. -Anish -- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Nov/0380.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#Interface_OperationName
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 13:59:54 UTC