W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:30:23 -0500
Message-ID: <418B0FEF.5050604@coastin.com>
To: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
CC: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org

This scenario sounds like it is not using WSDL.

With doc literal one could have the same type of the document in the 
body (as message part for wsdl operation) for two
different intended operations, but the two cases can  each use
a different global element name to distinguish two different operations 
using that type as the input message part.

Tom Rutt

WSDL: operation names appear in the child of the soap body.

It seems broken to me to have to rely on something outside the soap body 
to dispatch the operation.

Tom Rutt

Francisco Curbera wrote:

>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.
>                      "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 Little,
>Chief Architect,
>Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
>----- 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.
> ----- 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

Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 06:23:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:20 UTC