Re: Property-based action syntax

One thing we gain with having soapAction as a feature is the automatic 
possibility to define the soapAction value either at the binding level 
or at the operation level. The conflict rule (in case this feature is 
set both at the binding and operation level) is also (well-)defined 
once. This argument stands also for the webMethod feature/http verb. We 
have a factorization mechanism of information that people will have to 
learn once and not for special attributes like soapAction.
    Youenn

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
>>    
>>
>
>  
>