Re: PROPOSAL: Drop interface/operation/(input|output)/@headers

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>During the <message> elimination process, I proposed that it be
>eliminated by introducing a single element that may go as the 
>body of the message and zero or more "header" elements. The motivation
>was that it was possible in WSDL 1.1 to have such header and body
>parts and we didn't want to lose that functionality.
>
>The main use of the "header" parts are to enable one to use WSDL
>to describe middleware protocol type "applications" of WSDL. That
>is, one can imagine protocols requiring certain headers to be 
>present etc..
>
>However, to fully describe such protocols the header stuff has to
>be much much richer. If you look at the original context proposal
>I made back in January this year, you'll see some of that richness,
>but even that is not enough.
>
>At the same time, complicating WSDL to the extent needed to make
>it possible to fully describe a handful of middleware protocols
>when compared to the millions of "regular" applications doesn't
>seem like the right tradeoff. 
>
I have one "naive" question about your proposal.

I can envision two different use cases for headers, application specific 
and middleware introduced. For the latter, one can envision using 
properties and features (as has been discussed in this thread) and/or 
specific specs that deal with a specific feature (which is the case 
today with WS-* specs).

However, I am not clear on what options we are leaving to applications 
that would like to define headers. Can you clarify this if we were to 
remove headers?

Thanks.

--umit

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com

Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2003 14:04:49 UTC