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

RE: WS-Addr issues

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 07:40:03 -0500
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>, "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org, "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <OF391B4D2C.7148E80B-ON85256F44.0042EB77-85256F44.00459696@us.ibm.com>
Gudge wrote on 11/06/2004 04:07:10 AM:
> > 
> > So - in addition to seeing off wsa:action I would also like to see
> > refprops/refparams removed. Certainly people will want to populate the
> > header space with particular header blocks, but bodging this 
> > through an
> > addressing mechanism seems a poor factoring.
> RefProps/Params are NOT a generic way for specifying what SOAP headers a
> service requires. They *ARE* part of the address information.

I don't really see the difference.  If when they are used they become
SOAP headers how can they be view any other way?  I believe you said you
wanted to use the SOAP processing model to process them and that 
model is (excluding the Body stuff) all about how/when to process headers.

Personally, I think reading the text for wsa:Action and interpretting it
to mean "dispatch data" and then going even further to meaning that it can
become "the payload" to the point where the Body is empty (ala WS-MDEX) is
reading far more into wsa:Action than reading "ref.props. are headers" 
the ref.props defintion.

In both cases the text is sufficiently vague to allow all sorts of 
and I'm hoping the WG will, after the votes and hanging chads are counted,
make the text explicitly clear. 

Received on Saturday, 6 November 2004 12:40:44 UTC

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