- From: Arun Gupta <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:01:12 -0700
- To: pyendluri@webmethods.com
- Cc: W3C WS-Addressing Public List <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Does this need to be sent to the issues list to be tracked as an issue ? -Arun Prasad Yendluri wrote: > 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 -- got Web Services ? Download and Contribute Web Services Interoperability Technology (WSIT) http://java.sun.com/webservices/interop
Received on Thursday, 20 July 2006 23:01:24 UTC