- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:02:41 -0800
- To: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
- CC: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
About wsa:Action but not related to this MIH being mandatory: One of the uses of wsa:Action that I have seen is when two wsdl operations (of the same portType/interface) have the same QName for the 1st child of the SOAP body. In such a case it makes it hard for the service to disambiguate the wsdl operation based on the content of the SOAP Body. The way WS-I resolved this was by disallowing such operations in WS-I compliant portTypes. But, WSDL 2.0 does not disallows this. WS-A spec does not require that the wsa:Action be unique -- which means one may not be able to use wsa:Action for such disambiguation. Although, the default wsa:Action rules do result in a unique value for the wsa:Action. Should we require wsa:Action attribute value to unique within the portType/interface? Comments? -Anish -- Francisco Curbera wrote: > I think the issue is not whether you invoke a method or not (who cares what > happens under the cover?) but the fact that when you don't provide a clear > mechanism for indicating message intent you end up with many more than you > wish you had. I think that we would do a disservice to the WS community if > we didn't take this chance to sort out this mess once for all. > > Paco > > > > > > Marc Hadley > <Marc.Hadley@Sun. To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> > COM> cc: Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, Mark Little > Sent by: <mark.little@arjuna.com> > Marc.Hadley@Sun.C Subject: Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues) > OM > > > 11/04/2004 02:35 > PM > > > > > > 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 Friday, 5 November 2004 01:05:29 UTC