W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > August 2005

Re: Action without UsingAddressing

From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:42:25 -0400
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: Arun Gupta <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8979CD06.5CBC0472-ON85257050.004A0B32-85257050.004B4BD6@us.ibm.com>

I don't agree with the wsdl:required='false' analogy. That only means that
the client processing the WSDL may ignore a certain WSDL extension, in this
case wsaw:UsingAddressing. Maybe I am missing something but I don't think a
wsdl:required='false' allows the service to exhibit random behavior. That
service is promising to honor WSA for incoming WSA compliant messages but
also to accept non WSA messages.

As for Arun's question, my view is that a server that does not include the
wsaw:UsingAddressing marker in the binding cannot be assumed to be
following WSA. Of course, services may have additional unpublished
behaviors, but those are not part of the public contract so they don't
exist from a WSDL perspective. Based on the WSDL, a client should only
assume WSA compliance when explicitly stated in the binding.


                      Anish Karmarkar                                                                                                          
                      <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.        To:       Arun Gupta <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>                                                
                      com>                            cc:       public-ws-addressing@w3.org                                                    
                      Sent by:                        Subject:  Re: Action without UsingAddressing                                             
                      07/29/2005 03:32 PM                                                                                                      

Arun Gupta wrote:
> In that case two WSDL processors can process the same WSDL differently.
> For instance, one WSDL processor may ignore wsaw:Action and the other
> processor may use it for sending SOAP messages. Is that an acceptable
> behavior ?

I would think so. The WSDL spec does not say whether attribute
extensions are mandatory or not.

This is no different than having wsa:UsingAddressing element with a
wsdl:required='false'. In such a case, WSDL processor A may choose to
engage WS-Addressing and WSDL processor B may not choose to engage
WS-Addressing. Which is fine, since the service advertised it as so.

> Since wsaw:UsingAddressing is the normative way to define the intent to
> conform to WS-Addressing, I think we need to define a consistent
> behavior in the WSDL binding to that effect. Basically stating that
> wsaw:Action on an operation need to be processed only if
> wsaw:UsingAddressing exists. Is that too strong a statement ?

I think it is too strong a statement. It is possible that WS-Addressing
is engaged even if wsa:UsingAddressing is not specified in WSDL. One way
this may happen is (as Umit mentions in her email) through policies.

> -Arun
> Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>> There aren't any required/mustUnderstand rules for attribute
>> extensions (which is what wsaw:Action is) in WSDL. If wsaw:Action is
>> present without a wsaw:UsingAddressing on the corresponding
>> binding/port then I would think it would be up to the WSDL processor
>> to decide whether it wants to ignore wsaw:Action or not (in which case
>> it will have to engage ws-addressing).
>> -Anish
>> --
>> Arun Gupta wrote:
>>> If the WSDL does not contain wsaw:UsingAddressing in either
>>> wsdl:binding or wsdl:port but some of the wsdl:portType/
>>> wsdl:operation(s) contain wsaw:Action, what is the expected  behavior
>>> in such case ?
>>> I would expect that we ignore wsaw:Action on wsdl:operation. WSDL
>>> Binding does not seem to say anything about such a case.
>>> -Arun
Received on Monday, 1 August 2005 13:42:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:28 UTC