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

David Orchard wrote:

> The real problem is the same problem we had with the optional soap 1.1
> action http header. 

Acutally, the SOAPAction HTTP header is required and is not optional [1].

-Anish
--

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/#_Toc478383528

> 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.  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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
>

Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 00:38:00 UTC