Re: Issue 019: WSDL Version Neutrality

On Nov 16, 2004, at 9:24 PM, Hugo Haas wrote:
> 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
>
I'd like to propose another (simple) solution: make action optional, 
drop the implicit action mapping, only include an action in a message 
if its explicitly specified in the WSDL.

Marc.

> (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/
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.