W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2006

WS-Transfer and endPointRefs-47

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:13:58 -0400
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0610161113k435f21bfqf00327d42ead1292@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>


I just scanned the recent TAG discussion about WS-Transfer and wanted
to provide some additional clarifying information ...

] Noah: My recollection is that there is this trick thats played with
EPR's where an EPR has a bunch of properties but when its mapped to
soap each of these properties gets its own header.
  -- http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-tagmem-minutes.html#item03

That's correct, but as I pointed out in raising[1] endPointRefs-47, if
you follow the specs in play, the URI in an EPR ends up in the wsa:To
header, not the HTTP Request-URI.  In fact, the Request-URI isn't
populated by the SOAP+WSA stack at all (if you adopt the common
interpretation of the SOAP 1.2 default HTTP binding, at least).  In
practice though (since obviously you have to have a Request-URI to
send an HTTP message!) its value is that of an "endpoint" (e.g. [2])
which serves as a message dispatch point, rather than as a destination
for the message.

This is in contrast to Henry's investigations into SOAP+WSA where he
used the EPR URI in the Request URI (as I pointed out[3]).

This issue isn't specific to WS-Transfer of course, but I think it
needs to be taken into account when examining WS-Transfer's
relationship to the Web.


 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jan/0000.html
 [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/endpoints/
 [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Nov/0017.html

Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 18:14:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:13 UTC