- From: Vinoski, Stephen <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:04:21 -0500
- To: "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
WSDL is designed for extensibility and allows for multiple bindings. It can be used to provide a service contract language that's independent of the underlying protocol, transport, and transfer syntax. We successfully use this extensibility in production today with a number of customers. Whether you like the fact that WSDL is extensible is neither here nor there -- it's in the spec. Why should WS-Addressing take it upon itself to undo the abstractions provided by the existing WSDL specification by supporting only a single protocol? You also seem to assume that a service is reachable over only a single protocol. Why? --steve -----Original Message----- From: Jim Webber [mailto:Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 6:23 PM To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org Subject: RE: i0001: EPRs as identifiers (why XML?) Paco: I'm having difficutly in understanding how WS-Addressing is useful at all to anything other than SOAP. [ SOAP Payload ] == message, transfer mechanism TBD [ SOAP Payload + WS-Address ] == message ready to go on some underlying network protocol Versus say: [ CORBA payload + IIOP info ] == message ready to go via TCP Or [ XML payload + HTTP headers] == message ready to go via HTTP So I see that other transfer protocols have addressing information as part of their unit of transfer by default. SOAP doesn't have that, hence the need for a SOAP-friendly addressing mechanism. So I am a little puzzled as to how WS-Addressing is useful outside the SOAP domain. Can you exemplify something from your experience to help? As for WSDL being so "flexible," well that sure goes some way to explaining how complex it is. Had WSDL gone down the route of describing SOAP message exchanges, then I don't think we would have all be thoroughly entertained by Rich's recent article. Perhaps Rich will commit to a similar article on WS-Addressing if it becomes all-embracing rather than focussed and useful :-) Jim
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 23:04:31 UTC