- From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:20:50 -0800
- To: "'David Illsley'" <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>, "'Rogers, Tony'" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
IMO, it would be weird to have certain assertions (WS-Addressing) result in direct WSDL component model changes, and others not (security policy for instance). If UsingAddressing goes, so should {addressing} I think. Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com > -----Original Message----- > From: David Illsley [mailto:david.illsley@uk.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 5:37 AM > To: Rogers, Tony > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; Jonathan Marsh > Subject: Re: retaining the {addressing} property? > > I'm afraid my WSDL 2.0 and Policy Attachment for WSDL 2.0 knowledge isn't > up to much. > > It appears from WS-Policy Attachment [1] that the Addressing assertion > will appear as part of the {policy} property of the relevant WSDL > component. That may mean that we can reference that property to define > where to look for the assertion... but the fact that the value then > appears twice in component model and only once in the XML seems strange. > My impression of WSDL 2.0 is that it's expected that an extensibility > property maps to an extensibility element or attribute. > > This makes me wonder if we should be removing the {addressing} WSDL 2.0 > component model property. Can any WSDL 2.0 experts out there comment on > this? Jonathan? > > Sorry Tony, not an answer to the question you asked, > David > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-attach-20061117/#ws-policy- > attachment-for-wsdl20 > > David Illsley > Web Services Development > MP211, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN > +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049) > david.illsley@uk.ibm.com > > > > From: > "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> > To: > <public-ws-addressing@w3.org> > Cc: > David Illsley/UK/IBM@IBMGB > Date: > 01/10/2007 10:48 AM > Subject: > retaining the {addressing} property? > > > We are removing the UsingAddressing WSDL marker. I naively assumed that > meant removing the entire section 3.1. Upon more detailed study, I am > fairly sure that that is NOT the case. > > Do we intend to retain the {addressing} property which 3.1.1 introduced as > an extension to the WSDL 2.0 component model? I suspect that we need to do > so. > > Should we describe how the presence / absence / wsp:Optional-ness of the > wsam:Addressing assertion affects the {addressing} property? It can be > done, but I'd appreciate some help in phrasing it. Perhaps some words > along the line of: > > The {addressing} property is present if the wsam:Addressing assertion is > present. The value of the property is "required" is the only policy > alternatives present include this assertion, without the > wsp:Optional="true" attribute . The value of the property is "optional" if > there are policy alternatives that include this assertion, and > alternatives which do not include it, or if it is marked with the > wsp:Optional="true" attribute. > > I'd really appreciate a Policy-literate person rephrasing that in > legitimate Policy language :-) Should I separate the discussion of > alternatives with and without the assertion from discussion of > wsp:Optional? > > Do we also retain Table 3-1 showing the effect of the {addressing} > property? I think this table, plus the discusson of what must be present > for the message to be compliant, belongs in a separate section, placed > after the discussion of how the property is set. The current layout > confuses things, because it mixes the defining of the property with the > effects of the property, thus clouding the discussion of the SOAP module's > ability to affect the same property. > > So I think we should have 3.1 specifying the policy assertions, and their > effect on the {addressing} property, then 3.2 specifying the SOAP module, > and its effect on the {addressing} property, then 3.3 describing the > {addressing} property and the presence/absence of MAPs in the message. > > Does that make sense? > > Tony Rogers > CA, Inc > Senior Architect, Development > tony.rogers@ca.com >
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 16:40:37 UTC