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

Re: NEW ISSUE: making wsa:Action optional

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:16:23 -0800
Message-Id: <E56AF41E-30F9-11D9-9807-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
To: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>

This is now issue 31;

Also, in the future please separate the justification, description, 
etc. out into clearly marked sections; this makes it easier to get into 
the list.


On Nov 6, 2004, at 1:13 AM, Mark Little wrote:

> There is some confusion as to what precisely wsa;Action is meant to 
> represent in the current specification. However, most people seem to 
> have the opinion that it is used to represent the semantics of the 
> message contained in the SOAP body. In which case, this element is 
> used for dispatching the message (similar to using an opcode in other 
> distributed environments).
> However, if wsa:Action is used to optimize dispatching so that the 
> same semantics do not have to be obtained by parsing the entire SOAP 
> body, this is purely an optimization. As such, its presence or lack 
> thereof does not affect the architecture/model defined by the 
> specification; it is entirely feasible to implement the equivalent 
> distributed application without wsa:Action, albeit in (perhaps) a less 
> performant manner.
> The argument for adding wsa:Action is that many vendors want this 
> optimization and standardizing on it has merit. The argument against 
> is that dispatching isn't part of addressing and so shouldn't be in 
> this specification; furthermore, there are vendors and users who 
> simply don't need this functionality. In fact its presence doesn't 
> even mean that the receiver has to use it, so in that regard it's 
> optional at the receiver and yet mandatory at the sender.
> What the discussions over the past few days appear to show is that 
> making wsa:Action mandatory is wrong. In the case where it isn't 
> needed it encourages vendors/users to fill it with something that 
> isn't valid "because it's there", which adversely affects 
> interoperability. The lack of wsa:Action in a header sends a clear 
> message to any receiver; its presence does not.
> Therefore, I propose that we make wsa:Action optional.
> Mark.
> ----
> Mark Little,
> Chief Architect,
> Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
> www.arjuna.com

Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2004 20:16:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:21 UTC