W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2005

Options 1 and 3 Here we go.

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:56:35 -0800
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D64165AB581A@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I slugged away on Turkey weekend for the following two writeups. I am
not sure what kind of bonus/booby trap I will get with this effort, so
apologies in advance if there are small mistakes, etc in the writeups in
advance. I want to send these out so that we can discuss tomorrow. 

I do hope that I covered all the input from last week's concall meaning:

Option 1: (Labelled ProposalLast): I have incorporated defaults for
anonymous uri usage on the definition of wsaw:UsingAddressing element
with an attribute to indicate default usage similar to WSDL 2.0
definition of defaults for some extensions. Since using attribute
extensions were known to be problematic for operations and keeping
granularity for operation specific semantics was important for some, I
have used WSDL 2.0 as my example and defined wsaw:AnonymousUse element
to override defaults only in binding operation components. I think this
writeup is in the spirit of defining the granularity with an attribute
at the operation level, but does not have the same pitfall that we
discussed last week with respect to BP1.1/WSDL 1.1 inconsistencies wrt
extensibility hoopla. 

So, there it is. I also included the semantics of SOAP 1.1/HTTP in both
Options 1 and 3.

Option 3 (labelled ProposalLastWithThreeElements): I had to invent some
restrictions so that three different elements did not appear in multiple
places with semantics which were inconsistent with each other.
Otherwise, you will quickly notice that allowing multiple elements, i.e.
one in binding one in binding operation will get you in the same land
that is defined by Option 1. If you want to allow this kind of mix and
match, I suggest we actually drop Option 3 and consider Option 1
instead, since it is cleaner. 

I kept Option 3 because I introduced a restriction (see Note in the
writeup) for simplification of scopes, otherwise it is the same
semantics as Option 1 and is not cleaner (due to attachment granularity

For both proposals, I included Notes to reader for those things that I
anticipated a lot of discussion. 

Please note that I included different examples to illustrate the
different proposals in detail at the end.  <<ProposalLast.htm>>  

All changed/new text is in purple with no specific meaning, I just
happened to like purple today. 



Dr. Umit Yalcinalp
Standards Architect
NetWeaver Industry Standards
Tel: (650) 320-3095 

Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 04:55:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:30 UTC