- From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:44:38 -0700
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
- Message-ID: <425AD3A6.2010802@webmethods.com>
BTW, I just realized the WSAW namespace is not defined in the WS-A WSDL binding specification. I took it for granted based on the statement in the original proposal.. >I propose the marker be defined in the WSAW namespace introduced by the >WSDL binding document. Jonathan Marsh wrote: > To generalize your question, does splitting the definition of the > semantics of a namespace between multiple specs inhibit one's ability > to version those specs independently? I think it does and this is an > important question to explore. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Prasad Yendluri > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 3:00 PM > To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org > Subject: Re: Action item for issue i021 > > > > So, subsequest to our discussion on the call today, I can understand > how the wsaw namespace URI itself can (implicitly) serve to identify > the core spec. But this IMO assumes that the Core WS-Addressing > specification and WSDL binding specification are versioned in > lock-step and the core sepc URI in that spec is updated. Specifically > the point #2 below. Can the WSDL binding, core and other binding > specifications version independently in future? Or do we expect issue > a new revision of WS-A WSDL binding specification (that simply updates > the corespec reference (namespace)) even when there are no changes > otherwise to the WSDL binding spec? That seems like a dependency > that can be violated easily... > > ------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: > > > > Re: Action item for issue i021 > > Resent-Date: > > > > Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:49:32 +0000 > > Resent-From: > > > > public-ws-addressing@w3.org <mailto:public-ws-addressing@w3.org> > > Date: > > > > Mon, 04 Apr 2005 12:46:48 -0700 > > From: > > > > Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com> > <mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com> > > To: > > > > Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com> <mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com> > > CC: > > > > public-ws-addressing@w3.org <mailto:public-ws-addressing@w3.org> > > > Hi, > > I am trying to understand the impact of (future) versioning of > WS-Addressing specification itself on the solution proposed by this > proposal. > It is quite likely that we will need to deal with different versions > of WS-Addressing as we are with WSDL (1.1 vs 2.0) at this point, so I > would like that aspect to be addressed now. > > Given the WSAW namespace is defined in the WS-Addressing WSDL binding > specification, I see two levels of versioning: > > 1. Versioning of the WS-Addressing specification (as a whole) > 2. Versioning of WS-Addressing WSDL binding specification alone, > independent of the core (and vice versa). > > Now how does one specify which version of WS-Addressing specification > one is using? > > I mean the addition of the > <wsaw:UsingAddressing wsdl:required="true"/> > property on the binding extension / component does not give one enough > information on the specific version of WS-Addressing. Also I am not > sure how robust the use of wsaw namespace would be when the WSDL > binding, core and other binding specifications version independently > in future. Or do we not expect the latter to happen at all? > > Prasad > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: > > > > Action item for issue i021 > > Resent-Date: > > > > Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:44:29 +0000 > > Resent-From: > > > > public-ws-addressing@w3.org <mailto:public-ws-addressing@w3.org> > > Date: > > > > Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:43:40 -0500 > > From: > > > > Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com> <mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com> > > To: > > > > public-ws-addressing@w3.org <mailto:public-ws-addressing@w3.org> > > > >The following is a minimal proposal for representing the use of WSA in a > >WSDL service description. This fullfils an AI I took long ago, apologies > >for the long delay. > > > >The approach is as follows: introduce a marker to be used in both WSDL 1.1 > >and WSDL 2.0 bindings to indicate the fact that a service uses and requires > >clients to use WSA message information headers in every service invocation. > >I think it is generally accepted that this indication belongs in the WSDL > >binding, since one could possibly want to deploy the same interface with > >different protocols bindings in some of which WSA usage may not be common, > >including pre-WSA "legacy" SOAP bindings. > > > >A key issue about the semantics of this marker is that it assumes no change > >on the behavior of the WSDL MEP and WSDL binding on which it is applied > >EXCEPT for the fact that WSA MIHs will be present in accordance to the WSA > >WSDL binding spec. That is, the WSA WSDL binding marker is simply > >"additive" to existing semantics. The reasons for making this clear at this > >time is that there are important behavioral implications of the presence of > >WSA headers that may conflict with the semantics of a WSDL binding; the > >interaction between the two is essentially in the scope of the asynch TF > >discussions and its resolution should not be precluded by the introduction > >of this marker. It is thus the case that when the marker proposed here is > >present in a WSDL binding, all WSA implied behaviors that are inconsistent > >with the semantics of the MEP/binding are explicitly not allowed (by the > >service so described). The best example of this is the possible presence in > >an HTTP request of a replyTo EPR with an address that is not the anonymous > >URI. Assuming that the WSDL binding specifies a traditional HTTP > >synchronous interaction, non-anonymous replyTo URIs are considered a > >violation of the WSDL binding contract since this one mandates (as of > >today) that the response be sent back over the open HTTP channel. > > > >I propose the marker be defined in the WSAW namespace introduced by the > >WSDL binding document. > > > ><wsaw:UsingAddressing wsdl:required="true"/> > > > >Some notes: > > > >1. The wsdl:required=true is mandatory when the UsingAddressing element is > >used. > >2. The marker element may appear within any of the binding elements: > ><wsdl:binding>, <wsdl:operation>, <wsdl:input>, <wsdl:output>, <wsdl:fault> > >with semantics defined by the usual scoping rules. > > > >WSDL 1.1 example: > > > ><binding name="StockQuoteSoapBinding" type="tns:StockQuotePortType"> > > <soap:binding style="document" > >transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http" <http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http>/> > > <wsaw:UsingAddressing wsdl:required="true"/> > > <operation name="GetLastTradePrice"> > > <soap:operation > >soapAction="http://example.com/GetLastTradePrice" <http://example.com/GetLastTradePrice>/> > > <input> > > <soap:body use="literal"/> > > </input> > > <output> > > <soap:body use="literal"/> > > </output> > > </operation> > ></binding> > > > >WSDL 2.0 example: > > > ><binding name="reservationSOAPBinding" > > interface="tns:reservationInterface" > > type="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/soap12" <http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/soap12> > > wsoap:protocol="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP" <http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP>> > > <wsaw:UsingAddressing wsdl:required="true"/> > > <operation ref="tns:opCheckAvailability" > > wsoap:mep="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/request-response" <http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/request-response>/> > > > > <fault ref="tns:invalidDataFault" wsoap:code="soap:Sender"/> > > > ></binding> > > > > > >Paco >
Received on Monday, 11 April 2005 19:43:45 UTC