- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 04:26:01 -0800
- To: "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marc Hadley > Sent: 10 November 2004 18:52 > To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org > Subject: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo > > > Issue 28[1] concerns the implications of the presence of > ReplyTo in a > message. Does the presence of a wsa:ReplyTo imply that a reply is > required, does absence of ReplyTo indicate a one-way message ? > > <wsa:ReplyTo> is optional and the specification states that: > > (i) It "MUST be present if a reply is expected", > (ii) But "If the [reply endpoint] is absent, the contents of the > [source endpoint] may be used to formulate a message to the source." > [reply endpoint] serializes as wsa:ReplyTo, [source endpoint] > serializes as wsa:From. > > I.e. <wsa:ReplyTo> must be present, but if not use <wsa:From> > instead - > the two statements seem to be contradictory. I don't think they are. If you expect a reply ( e.g. you're sending the initial message a WSDL 1.1 request-response ) then the message you send MUST have a [reply endpoint] property. I think the second clause about [source endpoint] is just informational, it doesn't have any bearing on the previous text. May be it should be under [source endpoint]? > > If we accept (i) then a typical use of a request response MEP > using the > SOAP/HTTP binding would require the presence of the following header > block: > > <wsa:ReplyTo> > > <wsa:Address>http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/08/addressing/role/ > anonymous</wsa:Address> > </wsa:ReplyTo> > > This is a lot of bytes that provide no real information. My > preference > would be that omission of a ReplyTo is semantically > equivalent to its > presence as shown above but that would mean that its presence > cannot be > used to determine whether a reply is expected or not. I think providing a 'default' value in the case is a mistake. I saw one of the benefits of WS-Addressing was that the headers that appeared in a message DID NOT vary depending on how the message was actually transmitted. Gudge > > Marc. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i028 > --- > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> > Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems. > > >
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2004 12:26:36 UTC