Re: Issue 019: WSDL Version Neutrality

Hi Rich.

* Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com> [2004-11-16 20:17-0500]
> > Maybe if others agree with me, and if we also want to ease migration,
> > we should actually change the algorithm for 1.1 to match 2.0's.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by this (please explain), but the phrasing
> sets of alarm bells.  We *cannot* break the current deployed base,
> of WSDL 1.0 and how it's used, so I assume you don't mean that.

It would be a change for WSDL 1.1 + WS-Addressing deployed solutions.
However, in any case, the addressing namespace will change as well as
probably other things, so something will have to change with the new
version of addressing. So I think that we are not breaking the
deployed base as new code will have to be written anyway.

The solutions for implicit action values that have been proposed are:

1. keep the WSDL 1.1 implicit value algorithm for WSDL 1.1, use the
   WSDL 2.0 component designator URI for WSDL 2.0, and treat those as
   equivalent

2. keep the WSDL 1.1 implicit value algorithm for WSDL 1.1, introduce
   a similar algorithm for WSDL 2.0, so that the values match in most
   cases

3. keep the WSDL 1.1 implicit value algorithm for WSDL 1.1, use the
   WSDL 2.0 component designator URI for WSDL 2.0, but treat those
   differently: basically, in at least one of those descriptions, the
   action will have to be specified so that it is the same in both
   cases

4. use the WSDL 2.0 component designator URI for WSDL 2.0, provide a
   similar algorithm for WSDL 1.1, so that the values match in most
   cases

(1) requires implementors to (potentially) support as many URIs as
there are WSDL descriptions of different versions of their service.

(2) introduces a new URI mechanism for WSDL 2.0 whereas WSDL 2.0
already defines one which allows to dereference the WSDL.

(3) requires to specify the action value in one of the descriptions —
if several are being provided — if a value is not manually set.

(4) introduces a new URI mechanism for WSDL 1.1 which is different
from the one which is in the Member submission.

(3) or (4) have my personal preference.

Cheers,

Hugo

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