Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)

On Nov 4, 2004, at 12:33 PM, David Orchard wrote:
>
> The real problem is the same problem we had with the optional soap 1.1
> action http header.  Software can't count on it being there, so they 
> end
> up looking inside the body as "the one true and certified source of
> action" which effectively pushed everybody into RPC land.

I think the association between looking at the payload of a message and 
RPC is false. One could just as easily argue that requiring an action 
is *more* RPC-like where action==method and message payload==method 
parameters.

RPC is in the eye of the beholder, its not defined by the presence or 
lack of an action.

Marc.

>   This happened
> because all the toolkits had to support at least looking in the body 
> and
> then not all did the look at action and thus the world was a worse
> place.
>
> I predict that an optional WSA:Action will have the same effect IF 
> there
> is no mandatory/normative way of generating a WSA:Action infset 
> property
> from any binding that hasn't serialized the WSA:Action as a soap header
> block.
>
> I don't want to live in the message bodies always contain the verb 
> world
> any more.
>
> Dave
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:24 AM
>> To: David Orchard; Francisco Curbera
>> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>> Subject: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)
>>
>> David, I changed the subject line - you're right in that regard.
>>
>> As for keeping wsa:Action mandatory, I think you're wrong ;-)
>>
>> What is the real problem with making this optional? What would break
> as a
>> result?
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>> ----
>> Mark Little,
>> Chief Architect,
>> Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
>>
>> www.arjuna.com
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
>> To: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>; "Mark Little"
>> <mark.little@arjuna.com>
>> Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>;
> <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 4:40 PM
>> Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues
>>
>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> Arguing against action is like arguing against HTTP operations.
> Having
>>> one spot for Action will give all WS-A applications a much simpler
>>> processing model and enable a doc/literal world.
>>>
>>> Separately, can we pick better subject lines and focus the
> conversation
>>> a bit?  I think this thread is on mandatory Action.  I expect we are
>>> going to debate every single component's mandatory/optional nature
> and
>>> separating them would help a lot.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>>> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
>>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Curbera
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 6:26 AM
>>>> To: Mark Little
>>>> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org;
> public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: WS-Addr issues
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The idea that the intent of the message is *always* embedded in
> the
>>> body
>>>> of
>>>> the message smells like SOAP-RPC in sheep clothes to me. I am not
>>> saying
>>>> that will never be the case, but you need to allow for the case in
>>> which
>>>> the same document type is used in different interactions - for
>>> example, a
>>>> customerInfo document could be sent as input to both an "update"
> and a
>>>> "create" operations.This "document centric" model is actually very
>>>> frequent
>>>> (it is no uncommon in CICS applications for example). To support
> this
>>>> model
>>>> you need either an Action header or something functionally
> equivalent.
>>>>
>>>> Paco
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                       "Mark Little"
>>>>                       <mark.little@arjuna.com>        To:
>>> "Sanjiva
>>>> Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>,
> <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
>>>>                       Sent by:                        cc:
>>>>                       public-ws-addressing-req        Subject:
> Re:
>>> WS-
>>>> Addr issues
>>>>                       uest@w3.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                       11/04/2004 05:05 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sanjiva. Although not an answer to your question, I think it's
>>> worth
>>>> bringing up generally: personally I think wsa:Action should be
> dropped
>>> or
>>>> made optional. Why have an "op code" (which is essentially what it
> is)
>>>> embedded in an address? I can see that there are optimizations
> that
>>> could
>>>> be made to dispatching directly on the Action rather than having
> to
>>> parse
>>>> the body, but surely that's an implementation specific issue? I'd
> be
>>>> interested in knowing how many users of WS-Addressing actually use
>>> this
>>>> versus those that ignore it.
>>>>
>>>> Mark.
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> Mark Little,
>>>> Chief Architect,
>>>> Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
>>>>
>>>> www.arjuna.com
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana
>>>> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 7:42 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: WS-Addr issues
>>>>
>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>>
>>>> What's your view of dispatching with wsa:Action? Since those are
>>> required
>>>> to be unique that gives enough info to find the operation to
> dispatch
>>>> to within a service. The service itself is of course identified
> from
>>>> the <To> somehow.
>>>>
>>>> Sanjiva.
>>>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>>>  From: Vinoski, Stephen
>>>>  To: Doug Davis
>>>>  Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>>>  Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 12:58 AM
>>>>  Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues
>>>>
>>>>  +1 to having a pointer to the WSDL itself in the EPR. We have
> found
>>> in
>>>>  working with our customers that having access to the service
>>> definition
>>>> is
>>>>  critical for applications that rely on pure dynamic dispatching.
>>>>
>>>>  --steve
>>>>        -----Original Message-----
>>>>        From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
>>>>        Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 11:02 AM
>>>>        To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>>>        Subject: WS-Addr issues
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        I might have missed a formal request for "issues" from the
>>> public
>>>>        but since it appears there is now an issues list I thought
> I'd
>>> make
>>>>        some suggestions on possible issues for the WG's
> consideration:
>>>>
>>>>        issue: EPRs have WSDL bits - e.g. PortType, ServiceName.
> But
>>> no
>>>>        pointer to the actual WSDL itself - why not?  W/o the WSDL
> do
>>> these
>>>>        values mean anything?  And if we assume the consumer of the
> EPR
>>> has
>>>>        the WSDL why can't we assume they know the PortType and
>>>> ServiceName?
>>>>        Perhaps an example of how this would be used would clarify
> it
>>> for
>>>>        me.
>>>>
>>>>        issue: If a response message is expected then a wsa:ReplyTo
>>> MUST be
>>>>        included.  Does the absence of a wsa:ReplyTo imply a
> one-way
>>>>        message?  The spec seems to come very close to saying that.
>>> And
>>>>        does the presence of wsa:ReplyTo imply a two-way message?
> My
>>>>        preference would be to have a clear statement so that upon
>>>>        inspection of the message itself a processor can know if
> its a
>>>>        one-way or two-way w/o having to go back to the wsdl.
>>>>
>>>>        issue: wsa:FaultTo:  "This property may be absent if the
> sender
>>>>        cannot receive fault messages (e.g. is a one-way
> application
>>>>        message)."  But it also says that in the absence of
> wsa:FaultTo
>>> the
>>>>        wsa:ReplyTo/From may be used.  So, how does a client really
> say
>>>> that
>>>>        it doesn't want ANY fault messages at all but still be
> allowed
>>> to
>>>>        specify a wsa:From?
>>>>
>>>>        thanks
>>>>        -Doug
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.

Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 19:35:38 UTC