- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:25:01 -0800
- To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
I took an action to identify which parts of the specification give an impression that EPRs are more abstract than they actually are. This email fulfills that action. This action was assigned during the discussion of issue i018 at the MEL f2f. This issue deals with the fact that the SOAP binding for EPR maps Reference Parameters directly as first class SOAP header blocks (with no change). This implies that SOAP 1.1/1.2 attributes such as soap11:mustUnderstand, soap12:mustUnderstand, soap11:actor, soap12:role, soap12:relay must be specified in the value of Reference Parameters in an EPR instance. I.e. the abstract property [Reference Parameter] value can be SOAP 1.1/1.2 specific. This means that when specifying a value for a reference parameter the minter of the EPR has to know not only the fact that the EPR is being used with SOAP but the version of SOAP as well. Going through the spec the only place that it talks about abstractness is section 2.1 [1]. But this abstractness may only have to do with the fact that it is independent of serialization. I (and I suspect Glen as well) had interpreted WS-Addressing abstract properties to mean that all instance of an EPR could be bound to either SOAP 1.1 (using SOAP 1.1 binding) or SOAP 1.2 (using SOAP 1.2 binding) or some other protocol. If this interpretation is correct then the SOAP binding violates such an abstractness since it would inject soap version specific MU/role/actor/relay attributes in the value of the Ref Params. If this interpretation is incorrect, i.e., the abstractness has to do with the fact that it is independent of serialization then it seems like there isn't an issue here. Comments? -Anish -- [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-core.html
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 08:25:37 UTC