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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Anish Karmarkar
> Sent: vendredi 5 novembre 2004 02:03
> To: Francisco Curbera
> Cc: Marc Hadley; David Orchard; Mark Little; 
> public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

This is exactly what I meant when stating that one cannot always infer
the intended action from the message payload.
 
> The way WS-I resolved this was by disallowing such operations in WS-I 
> compliant portTypes. But, WSDL 2.0 does not disallows this.

Resolving the issue by just forbidding it is not a satisfactory solution
anyway...
 
> 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?

Sounds reasonable.

> 
> -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 12:16:05 UTC