Re: Issue 019: WSDL Version Neutrality

Hi Umit.

* Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> [2004-11-09 03:02+0100]
> >- the action MIH has some WSDL 1.1 language associated to it. I would
> >  propose:
> >
> >    It is RECOMMENDED that value of the [action] property is a URI
> >    identifying an input, output, or fault message within a WSDL
> >    description.
> >
> >- the main issue with the action MIH comes from:
> >
> >    An action may be explicitly or implicitly associated with the
> >    corresponding WSDL definition. Section 3.3 below describes the
> >    mechanisms of association.
> >
> >  However, section 3.3 describes a WSDL 1.1-specific mechanism. If the
> >  service has a WSDL 2.0 description, another mechanism needs to be
> >  used, which is actually defined by the WSDL 2.0 specification[4].
> >
> >  I would therefore propose that section 3.3 be introduced as a
> >  mapping of a WSDL 1.1 description to an action URI, that we note
> >  that for WSDL 2.0, the message reference component URI should be
> >  used.
> >
> 
> 
> After many hours of discussions in WSDL 2.0 wg with respect to how to carry operation names on the wire, the  content of [action] with the fragment identifier as proposed looks a lot like the operation name feature for WSDL 2.0 [1], which is described in Section 2.2.1.1. Interestingly, there has been resistence to make it a required feature [2]. 
> 
> Action delivers exactly the requirement that the operation name feature was trying to deliver with your proposal, namely making the operation name on the wire to be present. If Action is required to be present, as being debated now, consequently the operation name will always present as suggested by the fragment identifier value ONLY IF the value of [action] MUST be the fragment identifier.  
> 
> Therefore, I am trying to get a clarification to whether you are suggesting that the value SHOULD be the fragment identifier or MUST be? Following the similar debate, the answer begs the question as to whether it is possible to define a "null" action (even if Action is required) or whether the proposed [action] values MAY contain URI values including, but not limited to, fragment identifiers of message reference components.  

As it stands, this is only a default value for people who have a WSDL
in their hands (a SHOULD). However, you could not use a "null" value
as the [action] URI is mandatory, though you could certainly use an
unhelpful one such as "http://unhelpful.example/".

Basically, the use of addressing will give people the ability to
fulfill the operation name requirement, but I think that it will only
fulfill it if they use it to provide useful information, which the
implicit value does.

Cheers,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/