RE: Header blocks in wrpc:signature

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
issue as CR082 [1].

The Working Group felt that the current best practice has evolved away from
including headers in the signature.  The current rpc:signature definition is
an interface (abstract) construct, headers are a binding (concrete)
construct, and to mix the two layers could have negative consequences on the
reusability of either part.

Perhaps most importantly, at this point in our process, it is hard to add
new functionality without slipping our already-far-too-long schedule.  The
Working Group thus did not introduce any changes in the spec in response.

Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of September, we will assume you
agree with the resolution of this issue.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR082


Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason T. Greene
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:44 PM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Header blocks in wrpc:signature
> 
> 
> Several toolkits allow for the mapping of a SOAP header to a parameter,
> this is not allowed by the current description of wrpc:signature in
> section 4.1.1.
> 
> Would it be possible to clarify this to allow for root elements that are
> out of message bounds as specified by the appropriate binding extension?
> This would allow for both http and soap headers.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Jason
> 
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Jason T. Greene
> Senior Software Engineer
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
>

Received on Friday, 20 October 2006 21:03:13 UTC