RE: Action without UsingAddressing

Umit,

I agree with your point that an endpoint may support more capabilities than
it publishes in WSDL, so it is not an error to (also) support WSA when that
is not advertised in the binding (OTOH, it should be an error if WSA is
required but thew requirement is not published in the WSDL). However, I
think the issue is more generic than WSA, it affects how one interprets a
WSDL document in general. The problem is essentially: is the WSDL
description required to be exhaustive? I agree that the answer is NO, but I
think this is probably for the WSDL working group to clarify.

Paco




                                                                                                                                        
                      "Yalcinalp, Umit"                                                                                                 
                      <umit.yalcinalp@s        To:       Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "Anish Karmarkar"                          
                      ap.com>                   <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>                                                            
                                               cc:       "Arun Gupta" <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>,              
                      08/01/2005 03:12          <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>                                                   
                      PM                       Subject:  RE: Action without UsingAddressing                                             
                                                                                                                                        






> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
> Francisco Curbera
> Sent: Monday, Aug 01, 2005 6:42 AM
> To: Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: Arun Gupta; public-ws-addressing@w3.org;
> public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Action without UsingAddressing
>
>
> 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.

Agreed, see below.

>
> 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.

I agree.

However, I think Arun's question is whether we can assume that it is an
error when wsaw:UsingAddressing marker does not exist in WSDL and the
endpoint still conforms with WS-Addressing. In my email, I argued that
this should not be an error condition as the behaviour may be governed
by policies external to WSDL. Therefore, my intention is to talk about
conformance/behaviour only when the wsaw:UsingAddressing marker is
present what it means, but not to treat it as an error when the marker
is not present in WSDL.

Namely:
- wsaw:UsingAddressing present in WSDL (the service supports WS-A).
Follows your definition above.

- wsaw:UsingAddressing not present in WSDL: The endpoint may or may not
support WS-Addressing depending on whether there is additional
metadata/policy that governs the endpoint. Therefore, we should not
enforce or assume conformance when it is absent.

That is my view anyway.

>
> Paco
>
>

--umit

>
>
>
>
>                       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
>
>                       public-ws-addressing-req
>
>
>                       uest@w3.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                       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 20:03:59 UTC