Re: NEW ISSUE: making wsa:Action optional

OK, will do.

Thanks,

Mark.

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
 
www.arjuna.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: making wsa:Action optional


> 
> This is now issue 31;
>    http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i031
> 
> Also, in the future please separate the justification, description, 
> etc. out into clearly marked sections; this makes it easier to get into 
> the list.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 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 Monday, 8 November 2004 09:53:47 UTC