- From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:26:03 -0400
- To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Vote: 2, 3. At the moment, at least. There might well be a 4 I could vote for. Marc Hadley wrote: > An interesting thread but I think its drifted away from the original > question which was: if I don't include a wsa:UsingAddressing in my > WSDL but I do include a wsa:Action, is the processor expected/ > required to (i) include addressing MAPs and (ii) honor the action > value declared in the wsa:Action. IOW, is inclusion of a wsa:Action > equivalent to inclusion of a wsa:UsingAddressing and if so is it > equivalent to one with wsdl:required=true or false ? > > Maybe I've misunderstood, but it doesn't sound like we have any > consensus on this yet. Here are the options as I see them: > > 1. Inclusion of wsa:Action is equivalent to inclusion of > wsa:UsingAddressing with wsdl:required=true (messages MUST include > wsa MAPs and wsa:Action MUST be honored) > > 2. Inclusion of wsa:Action is equivalent to inclusion of > wsa:UsingAddressing with wsdl:required=false (messages MAY include > wsa MAPs but if so wsa:Action MUST be honored) > > 3. Inclusion of wsa:Action without inclusion of wsa:UsingAddressing > is purely advisory (messages MAY include wsa MAPs and if so > wsa:Action MAY be honored) > > 4. Something else. > > I don't like 1 since it seems to circumvent wsdl:required and will > require special wsa aware WSDL processors. 2 and 3 seem OK, I have a > preference for 2. > > Chad anyone ? > > Marc. > > > On Aug 9, 2005, at 7:05 AM, paul.downey@bt.com wrote: > >> >> Paco rather sensibly said: >> >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> I agree. I can't see how a WSDL document could ever be exhaustive, >> e.g. how can I describe that my endpoint is secured using Basic >> Authentication >> and your account must be in credit without resorting to the "spec >> which shall >> not be named"? >> >> And just because we're about to provide a mechanism for describing that >> WS-Addressing is engaged, why should that invalidate services which >> happen to have WSDLs that don't make use of it? >> >> WSDL is just a description, which can be complete or incomplete as the >> publisher wishes it to be. >> >> OTOH if a WSDL explicitly stated WS-Addressing isn't in use and then >> the >> service required it, well that might be a different matter. >> >> Paul >> >> > > --- > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> > Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems. > >
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 03:26:11 UTC