- From: <sylvain.marie@fr.schneider-electric.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:05:49 +0200
- To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
- Cc: antoine.mensch@odonata.fr
- Message-ID: <OFDD922989.E8F3A6B0-ONC12575CA.003A073F-C12575CA.004D7002@schneider-electric.co>
Hi, I have been working for the fast few years on Devices Profile for Web Services (DPWS) specification, and especially on an implementation (https://forge.soa4d.org/). DPWS 1.0 was originally referring to WSA member's submission, while DPWS 1.1 specification has now moved to WS-Addressing 1.0. WS-Addressing specifies how messages corresponding to different Message Exchange Patterns (MEP) are sent. However it does not seem to specify a reliable way to detect which MEP is actually in use. In particular the One-Way MEP may not be detected reliably, which prevents devices to make any optimisation (for example, send the empty HTTP response for SOAP/HTTP binding). The only alternative is to inspect the actionUri and refer to a service's WSDL in order to retrieve the appropriate MEP. In DPWS implementations we think that the driver should be able to implement the default processing chain without necessary knowing about the web services deployed on top of it. We first thought about using the absence of "replyTo" as a good indicator for a One-Way MEP but since WS-Addressing 1.0 this does not work any more, as replyTo always have a default value ("anonymous"). No we are thinking about using the absence of "messageId" as a clue to detectt One-Way MEPs but this is clearly a hack and not something we may rely on in he future. What is the opinion of WS-Addressing's WG about this ? Thank you very much in advance, Best regards, Sylvain Sylvain MARIÉ Embedded Software Engineer sylvain.marie@schneider-electric.co m +33 (0)4 76 57 67 31 / 34 67 31
Attachments
- image/jpeg attachment: 0F385492.jpg
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 10:30:31 UTC