- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:53:55 -0500
- To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
These issues have been added to the issues list. On Nov 3, 2004, at 11:01 AM, Doug Davis wrote: > 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. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i027 > 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. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i028 > 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? http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i029 -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:54:02 UTC