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

Spec design, including mandatory versus optional fields, is 100% about
trade-offs.  

I agree that there are cases where in a mandatory action will result in
garbage being filled in.  Same way as mandatory zip codes get filled in
with a "11111" by me as a resident of Canada.

I can now imagine some viewers thoughts "Aha! See, you just proved my
point about mandatory fields resulting in garbage.  How could you be so
foolish?!"

There is a trade-off to be made.  Any mandatory fields may result in
garbage.  Any optional fields may result in no data or even garbage.
The trade-off is around certainty of the field with possibility of
garbage versus lack of certainty of the field and still possibility of
garbage.

In the case of the zip code, the site designer has found that there is
enough useful data collected that it is useful to proceed with the
mandatory, even though there is some garbage.  They gain a benefit in
all of their Java/C#, database, HTML, CSS, DOM, ECMAScript coding
because the field is required and that certainty is worth the cost of
the few enough scenarios of garbage.  

Thus it hits an 80/20 point for them.  

I can imagine more thoughts like "My point is still made!  The site has
the choice of making it mandatory or not, an optional Action that a
service requires is the same thing".  

But this is where the analogy breaks down.  The vendors at the table
build SOAP processing software and standardization of SOAP constructs
facilitates interop.  We are not building standardized data entry
languages - though UBL exists in a separate forum.  If we can
standardize WSA:Action, we can accrue benfits to all software that
leverages WSA:Action.

By retaining the status quo of Mandatory Action, all WS-A processors
have certainty about it's presence.   

Certainty has often led to accrued benefits.  An example that I love is
the certainty of the Java Class libraries was a key reason that people
switched from various flavours of Unix C++ to Java.  

There's also an old standards saw, which is that there should be as few
optional components as possible.  There's a reason why that saw exists,
to minimize interop problems.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:36 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Francisco Curbera; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org; public-ws-
> addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)
> 
> David, apologies for the delay in replying and I see that the
> discussion has moved on since last night (my time). Nevertheless I'll
> respond inline.
> 
> On 4 Nov 2004, at 17:56, David Orchard wrote:
> 
> > Mark,
> >
> > I think you misunderstand me.  I'm not saying design architectures
> > around bad toolkits.  I am saying architecture will guide component
> > design.  that I'm saying by making something like Action optional,
> > there
> > is a natural and predictable way that people will build toolkits.
> 
> Understood. However, there are a couple of points I need to make:
> 
> (i) the financial saying of "past performance is no indicator of
> current or future performance" comes into play. Just because you've
> seen this happen before doesn't mean it will happen again. If there
> really is a need for this in some applications, then people will use
> it.
> 
> (ii) building on (i), as I've said before, I've seen quite a few
> implementations that just see wsa:Action as baggage they have to fill
> in but don't use. I think we should be looking to make mandatory only
> those elements that are used in every situation. If you can show me
> that that is the case for wsa:Action then I'd be interested. This
model
> of mandatory elements only for global requirements works for other
> specifications, so I don't see why it won't work for us.
> 
> >
> > For example, the Web is based upon self-describing messages.  They
are
> > self-describing because the media-type of the representation is
> > included
> > the message.  This enables software to correctly dispatch n
different
> > representation types that are retrieved as part of a given
> > operaion/action.  You could argue that the media-type should have
been
> > optional for something like jpeg/gif and that any XML content type
> > could
> > be determined by looking at the body.  Oh, but wait, there may be
some
> > xml vocabularies, like XSLT and XENC, that can be embedded in
others.
> > They are the media type but they allow an "embedded" mode where they
> > aren't the doc root.  So the "body" child isn't it.  By enforcing
> > mandatory media-type, a whole bunch of web arch problems where
> > prevented.
> 
> I don't see this as the same thing at all. Firstly, MIME types can be
> strongly argued as required on all interactions. Secondly, this isn't
> addressing, it's dispatch. I think it's simply the wrong place in the
> architecture to put this (if it needs defining at all).
> 
> >
> > As for the meaning of addressing, which is what I think you are
tilting
> > at, I think Action is about how a resource is addressed as much as a
> > URI.  There is a big distinction between our informal and not
written
> > down definition of what "addressing" is and a formal definition of
an
> > identifier like URIs.  In my world of what "addressing" means, the
> > Action of a message will disambiguate between 2 equal message body
> > contents, the point that Paco made ealier and I +1ed.
> 
> We'll have to disagree then about what is and isn't addressing in this
> case. However, I think if you look at other distributed architectures
> over the past 30 years you'll be in the minority ;-)
> 
> >
> > I'd rather not get into the age old computing discussion about
whether
> > opcodes are data or not.  Please, let's not go there.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:39 AM
> >> To: David Orchard; Francisco Curbera
> >> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org;
public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)
> >>
> >>> 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.  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.
> >>
> >> That's a problem with the toolkits though. If wsa:Action is there,
use
> > it.
> >> If it isn't, look in the body. To say that you always look in the
body
> >> because of poor toolkits is the wrong reason to forge an
architecture.
> > If
> >> that were the main rule for anything, we'd still be working with
> > TCP/IP
> >> and
> >> sendmsg/recvmsg.
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> I understand. My preference would to be remove this from WS-Addr
> > entirely
> >> and put this into another spec. If we can't do that (because for
some
> >> reason
> >> people really believe this is something to do with addressing),
then
> > let's
> >> make it optional and assume that vendors can provide toolkits that
> > work :-
> >> )
> >>
> >> Mark.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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 18:52:07 UTC