- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:38:17 -0700
- To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Can someone raise this as an issue (i.e., with a description, etc.), so we have something to hang our hat on in discussion? Also, while it's truly *wonderful* that we're doing good technical discussion on the list -- and in August! -- keep in mind that we can't make decisions here; we'll need to vote at a meeting. Cheers, On 09/08/2005, at 8:26 PM, David Hull wrote: > > 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. >> >> >> > > > -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 15:38:27 UTC