RE: [destination] MAP and WSDL address

For an request message (not the response) the destination value (either
as it appears in WSDL or after being overridden) must not be anonymous.
The anonymous URI is simply not meaningful as there is no destination to
send the first message to. 
 
--umit
 


________________________________

	From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, Dec 21, 2005 1:30 PM
	To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Katy Warr; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
	Subject: RE: [destination] MAP and WSDL address
	
	
	That sounds like a good idea. Perhaps we should require that it
contain a meaningful value, and suggest that in many?most?normal?common?
cases this value would be ...
	 
	Tony

________________________________

	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of
Yalcinalp, Umit
	Sent: Thu 22-Dec-05 7:07
	To: Katy Warr; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
	Subject: RE: [destination] MAP and WSDL address
	
	
	Katy, 
	 
	We made them dependent in order for the values to be driven by
WSDL. Further, we wanted the destination to always contain a value
(unless it is an anonymous response). The intent was not to prevent the
override, but to require a "value" for the destination to be present
unless it is a synchronous response. The problem is due to mapping
destination property (mandatory) to wsa:To (optional). The wsa:To is
optional only when the destination is anonymous (hence synchronous
response). 
	 
	The case you are referring to does not pertain to the
synchronous response but to the destination property which is intended
for the request message to be sent. I do not think we deliberately
wanted to prevent the override in this case. That is my recollection
anyway.
	 
	It seems that we could relax the language to allow the override
with careful wording by requiring the destination to always contain a
meaningful value (i.e. non anonymous) unless it is a response message. 
	 
	--umit
	 


________________________________

		From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Katy Warr
		Sent: Wednesday, Dec 21, 2005 3:34 AM
		To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
		Subject: [destination] MAP and WSDL address
		
		

		The WS-A WSDL spec appears to be too restrictive wrt
[destination] MAP.   
		
		Here is the text: 
		
		>> 4.1 Destination 
		>> 
		>> The value of the [destination] message addressing
property for a message sent to an endpoint MUST match the 
		>> value of the {address} property of the endpoint
component (WSDL 2.0) or the address value provided by the relevant 
		>> port extension (WSDL 1.1). For a SOAP 1.1 port
described using WSDL 1.1, the value is provided by the location 
		>> attribute of the soap11:address extension element. 
		
		However, there are scenarios where the WSDL address is
overridden at runtime 
		by the programming model (for example: JAX-RPC
targetEndpointAddress). 
		The mandating of the [destination] MAP to the WSDL
address in the above text does not allow for override.   
		It forces the [destination] to be the development-time
WSDL address rather than an updated runtime address.   
		
		Looking back at the issue that generated this text, I
wondered whether the intent was that the [destination] should be 
		derived from the WSDL address only in the absence of
additional information (as proposal 1 of the issue below)? 
		
		This text was a result of issue 56: 
		http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i056 
		It was resolved with option 1 from the f2f minutes:
	
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/0001 
		The text for option 1 is: 
		>> The [destination] property is taken from the endpoint
or port address - 
		>> derived address (WSDL 2.0) or the applicable WSDL 1.1
extension (for 
		>> SOAP it is taken from soap:address/@location). ... 
		
		Before opening this as an issue, what are other folk's
opinions? 
		
		Thanks 
		Katy