- From: Jason T. Greene <jason.greene@jboss.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:33:32 -0500
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
I understand there is no time, however I disagree with the Working Group for the following reasons: 1. The purpose of rpc:signature is to provide programming language implementation details. Thus, it can't really be called an abstract definition. 2. Formalized Out-of-band data is a common concept in many protocols and is not necessarily concrete. In other words, this is not specific to soap headers; it can be mapped to many different protocol elements. I just used headers as a common example. 3. This is a loss of functionality from WSDL 1.1, which will most likely force proprietary extensions to WSDL 2.0. -Jason > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jonathan@wso2.com] > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 4:03 PM > To: Jason T. Greene > Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > Subject: 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 22:33:56 UTC