- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:51:34 -0800
- To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- CC: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Marc Hadley wrote: > On Nov 16, 2005, at 1:58 PM, David Hull wrote: > >> I prefer (2). I believe the name of the attribute was to be (or >> contain) "Anonymous", in which case >> <wsa:UsingAddressing Anonymous="Allowed"/> >> seems better than >> <wsa:UsingAddressing Anonymous="AnonAllowed"/> > > > Same here, adding 'Anon' to the value seems superfluous given that it > is already the name of the attribute. > +1 I also agree with David that we should not use 'async' anywhere in this, this is about the anon value. -Anish -- > Marc. > >> Again, I don't like the use of "async" anywhere in this, as the term >> is too heavily overloaded. >> >> Yalcinalp, Umit wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> I took an [action item] to send Proposal 1 so that it can be >>> reevaluated and modified. I am wondering whether we could make high >>> level decisions on the syntax first because this is where we will >>> end up anyway. If we make a decision first on this, it is easier to >>> write this section as it is a straightforward exercise. >>> >>> We have three options to represent asyncronous capabilities of the >>> endpoint, binding or binding/operation to describe the granularity >>> of supporting anonymous and non-anonymous URI as response addresses. >>> >>> We have three granularity levels to support (full capabilities of >>> addressing, supporting only anonymous URIs as response addresses or >>> supporting only non-anon) >>> >>> >>> (1) Two elements (as [Proposal1]) >>> usingAddressing element as currently described >>> Async element which is used in conjunction with usingAddressing >>> element with three values. >>> >>> (2) Marc's proposal (usingAddressing element with an attribute with >>> three values) [Marc]. >>> He proposes "Required", "Allowed", "Disallowed". I propose >>> "AnonRequired", "AnonDisallowed", "AnonAllowed" to reflect the >>> semantics we want to capture. >>> >>> (3) (new option) This came up during our conversations in writing >>> Proposal 1 and I speculate it may be discussed again. >>> >>> Use three elements: >>> >>> usingAddressing: It corresponds to the full usage of addressing >>> semantics including both anon/non-anon URI >>> usingAddressingAnonURIRequired (obvious) >>> usingAddressingNonAnonURIRequired (obvious) >>> >>> In option 1 and 2, we need to replace the text: >>> >>> {The inclusion of the wsaw:UsingAddressing element indicates that >>> the applicable WS-Addressing specifications are supported within the >>> constraints of the WSDL binding being used. That is, uses of the >>> WS-Addressing specifications that may violate or are inconsistent >>> with the semantics of the endpoint's WSDL binding are not supported >>> unless explicitly stated by some other mechanism. >>> >>> Specifically, when included in a SOAP binding, the >>> wsaw:UsingAddressing marker identifies the use of Web Services >>> Addressing 1.0 bound to SOAP as defined by Web Services Addressing >>> 1.0 - SOAP Binding[WS-Addressing-SOAP]. >>> >>> The presence of the wsaw:UsingAddressing element in the binding or >>> endpoint (port) components of the endpoint description does not >>> change the semantics of the binding. E.g. in the case of the WSDL >>> SOAP/HTTP synchronous binding for request-response operations, the >>> presence of the wsaw:UsingAddressing element does not change the >>> requirement that the response message be sent over the same HTTP >>> channel over which the request was received. In this case, the >>> wsa:replyTo header in the request MUST NOT contain an address with a >>> value different from the anonymous URI.} >>> >>> The last option requires changes section 3.1 somewhat as we need to >>> introduce all the new elements. >>> >>> >>> Let me know if you still want to see the full writeup for Option 1. >>> I will be very happy to write the target text depending on which >>> syntax that we choose to adopt as well. >>> >>> All syntax formulations must reflect the decision we have taken as a >>> wg, namely >>> >>> == there are three levels of granularity >>> == the new {Async element/attribute|?} is general, not targeted to >>> SOAP1.1/HTTP and talks about anon/non-anon URIs in their definition. >>> >>> == scoping is extended to binding operation >>> == separate section targets SOAP 1.1/HTTP binding semantics >>> (semantics of separate connection, 202, etc). >>> >>> >>> --umit >>> >>> >>> [Proposal1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws- >>> addressing/2005Oct/0116.html >>> [Marc] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/ >>> 2005Nov/0039.html >>> [Action Item] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/11/f2f-minutes.html >>> >>> >> > > --- > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> > Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems. > >
Received on Monday, 21 November 2005 20:51:12 UTC