Re: i056 Proposal

Good question.
It seems to me that making this a separate WSDL extension independent of 
wsaw:UsingAddressing seems to raise this question (and others: does this 
extension imply that WS-A is supported/required?) Issue i061 redux.

Why not just nest the EPR inside wsaw:UsingAddressing (with a few 
restrictions on where this can occur in WSDL) instead of making this a 
child element of wsdl20:endpoint or wsdl11:port ?

-Anish
--

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Do we need to define the behavior of EPR WSDL extensions in the face of 
> wsdl:required=”false”?
> 
>  
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
>  
> 
> I took an action to generate a proposal for closing issue 56[1]. The 
> 
> issue concerns how to determine the value of the [destination] property 
> 
> when sending messages to an endpoint described in WSDL. The proposal is 
> 
> as follows:
> 
>  
> 
> - Allow a wsa:EndpointReference element to be included as a child of 
> 
> wsdl20:endpoint or wsdl11:port.
> 
> - When a wsa:EndpointReference element is present as a child of a 
> 
> wsdl20:endpoint/wsdl11:port the usual WS-Addressing/binding rules apply 
> 
> [destination]=wsa:EndpointReference/wsa:Address.
> 
> - When there is no wsa:EndpointReference child element, the 
> 
> [destination] property is taken from the endpoint or port address - 
> 
> endpoint/@address (WSDL 2.0) or the applicable WSDL 1.1 extension (for 
> 
> SOAP it is taken from soap:address/@location).
> 
> - If there is no wsa:EndpointReference and the endpoint or port address 
> 
> is not specified then the value of [destination] is the anonymous URI.
> 
> - If there is both a wsa:EndpointReference and an endpoint/port address 
> 
> then they must have the same value.
> 
>  
> 
> Marc.
> 
>  
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i056
> 
>  
> 
> ---
> 
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> 
> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
> 
>  
>

Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 22:26:15 UTC