- From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:33:51 -0700
- To: Arun Gupta <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>
- CC: W3C WS-Addressing Public List <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <44C004CF.6010304@webmethods.com>
Hi Arun, Since it says "where a SOAPAction value is specified", I tend to think it covers #2 also, as a value had not been specified for SOAPAction, considering empty string is not a "value". I agree however that it would be clearer to exclude SOAPAction empty string case explicitly. Regards, Prasad Arun Gupta wrote: > > Section 4.4.1 of WSDL Binding [1] says: > > -- cut here -- > In the absence of a wsaw:Action attribute on a WSDL input element > where a SOAPAction value is specified, the value of the [action] > property for the input message is the value of the SOAPAction specified. > -- cut here -- > > Consider the following 3 different SOAP bindings for an operation in > WSDL 1.1: > > 1). <soap:operation soapAction="bindingSOAPAction"/> > > 2). <soap:operation soapAction=""/> > > 3). <soap:operation/> > > In 1)., SOAPAction is clearly specified. In 3). SOAPAction is clearly > not specified. Should 2). be considered as specified or not specified ? > > A literal reading of the spec will mean that SOAPAction is specified, > even though blank. I've seen 2). as a more common style in WSDLs. If > there happens to more than one operation in a portType (not uncommon > at all) and all the operation use 2)., then all the operations will > have exactly same wsa:Action within a portType. > > I think the wording of the spec should be changed to specify that only > a non-empty SOAPAction overrides the default Action. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-ws-addr-wsdl-20060529/#explicitaction > > Thanks, > -Arun
Received on Thursday, 20 July 2006 22:34:14 UTC