Re: Property-based action syntax

Yes of course, we could make everything a feature, but, as you say, this 
would not be very sensible. I too prefer to keep <address> as a built-in 
keyword.

As for SOAP Action -err, the "action" parameter as it's now called-, it 
has recently become a real SOAP feature[1], so it can now be modelled as 
such in WSDL. <soapAction> has thus become syntactic sugar. Personally, 
I'd remove it, in the interest of simplicity.

Jean-Jacques.

[1] 
<http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.html#ActionFeature>

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> One concern I have about P&F is that over-use of P&Fs can make the
> simple case harder. The SOAPAction is an example for me- yes,
> in theory its a property, but in practice its a *special* property ..
> everyone knows what it is etc.. So I would prefer to see a simple,
> direct syntax for setting such "special" properties rather than
> saying all properties are created equal. That is, I prefer something
> similar to what we have now for this:
>     <soapAction uri="..."/>
> 
> Otherwise, taken to an extreme, everything about a service is a
> property; including the interface it supports and the address at
> which its available. Clearly we don't want to go that far.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
> To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:37 PM
> Subject: Property-based action syntax
> 
> 
> 
>>WS-Desc'ers:
>>
>>Per my somewhat long-standing action item to express a property-based
> 
> representation of the SOAP 1.2 action parameter, here is a possible syntax:
> 
>><property uri="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/features/action/action">
>>*action-uri-goes-here*
>></property>
>>
>>This can be placed anywhere the <property> element is allowed, although it
> 
> makes the most sense inside a <soap:binding>.  Since the SOAP HTTP binding
> now uses the value of this property for the SOAP action parameter, this
> provides a way to set it in WSDL.  Clearly this would need to be turned into
> "spec-ese" and placed in the appropriate location in the spec.
> 
>>NOTE: I don't actually see the features/properties stuff we agreed on at
> 
> the last F2F in the working draft of the spec.  Editors?
> 
>>--Glen
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 05:27:37 UTC