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

RE: WS-Addr issues

From: Harm Smit <hsmit@easyconnect.fr>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:30:12 +0100
To: "'Jim Webber'" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "'Savas Parastatidis'" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, "'Francisco Curbera'" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, "'Mark Little'" <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00d201c4c333$3247ef20$6700a8c0@WXP>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Webber [mailto:Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk] 
> Sent: jeudi 4 novembre 2004 22:55
> To: Harm Smit; Savas Parastatidis; Francisco Curbera; Mark Little
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues
> Harm:
> > Why are you complicating the issue?
> I actually think it's an architectural simplification. 
> wsa:action is used as an aid for dispatchers in most 
> situations where one could just as simply dispatch by qname 
> of a message.
> > What is being demonstrated here is that in document mode, you
> > can't unambiguously infer the opcode from the soap:Body. 
> > So, in fact, the SOAP message can be viewed as a command of which
> > wsa:action is the opcode and the  soap:Body the operand.   
> > What's wrong with this and why would you try to find some 
> > convoluted solution to make the wsa:action optional? 
> Is it really the case that business permit different 
> processing of the same document? The only places I've seen 
> the same document being processed differently is where that 
> document has been used as a bucket for seralised method 
> paramters a la RPC.
> The view of opcode plus operand does WS an injustice. WS are 
> not about "invoking" or "operations" they are about the 
> exchange of structured documents between business systems.

Disagree. A document is sent in order to do something with it, whether
you call this the "intent", the "operation" or anything else.
> When I received a bill from a utility company, it doesn't 
> "invoke" the "GiveMeMoney" operation on me. I just get a 
> document which I parse and understand, and may take some 
> action on. Certainly the utility company does not stick an 
> action on the envelope like 
> "urn:pay:up:or:supply:will:be:cut" which is the function of 
> was:action.

Disagree again. A bill has a very clear "intent" (was:action): you are
invited to pay. Of course you may chose not to pay, but there is an
understanding that your suplly will be cut if you don't pay within a
certain time span. This understanding is at least implicitly defined in
your contract with the utility, it may also be explicitly reminded on
your bill or on an acompanying note and I see no fundamental reason why
the envelope couldn't mention something like "this letter contains a
bill that has to be paid before the end of the month, otherwise your
supply will be cut". In practice, the latter isn't done because the
envelope is carried by an intermediary and ensuring confidentiality
would be cumbersome, but this aspect is related to how the postal system
operates and is not germane to our discussion. If there was a means of
delivering the letter to you with end-to-end confidentiality, the fact
of indicating the intent of the letter on the envelope itself would
allow you to readily "dispatch" the letter according to the urgency you
associate to the stated intent. Incidentally, this is more or less what
ends up happening in case you decide not to pay... In this particular
example, if the envelope carried the intent of the payload, there would
definitely be a duplication of information as soon as the payload
identifies itself as a bill. But an alternative scheme could be to have
the payload only convey your monthly usage information and the envelope
remind you to pay; this would allow the same monthly usage information
document to also be used for other purposes than billing.
> Jim
> --
> http://jim.webber.name 
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 12:30:55 UTC

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