- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:38:01 -0700
- To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
For what it's worth, yes. On 10/08/2005, at 9:33 AM, David Hull wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: > > >> 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. >> > > We can still straw poll, no? > > >> >> 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 >> >> >> > > -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 17:38:19 UTC