RE: Proposal: Uniqueness on the Wire Requirement for WSDL 2.0

+1, but I'd add that the client is only ok if the transport correlates messages for the client (as with HTTP). For asynchronous models some addressing/policy magic beyond the GED is definitely required. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana []
Sent: 29 October 2003 02:00
To: Jeffrey Schlimmer; Anne Thomas Manes; Amelia A. Lewis
Subject: Re: Proposal: Uniqueness on the Wire Requirement for WSDL 2.0

+1 .. I have to say that WSDL deciding whether the message QName
is the service selector or the URL or something else is not right.

I remember asking about this when we implemented IBM SOAP, before
SOAP 1.1 was released. I too was looking for a specific thing to
be tagged as the "key" to routing messages (URL, SOAPAction or
first body element NS URI) - eventually it turns out that different
implementations can choose to route off different of these and
that's completely ok. What's necesssary is that clients be able
to form a proper envelope and send it to the right address. Whether
the server calls a magician to decide which service to invoke or
whether it requires unique element QNames so that it can route or
whether it uses a SOAP header that its clients are expected to put
on (and it presumably conveyed to the world via policy or however)
is up to that.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <>
To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <>; "Amelia A. Lewis"
Cc: <>; <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:50 AM
Subject: RE: Proposal: Uniqueness on the Wire Requirement for WSDL 2.0

> > From: Anne Thomas Manes []
> >
> > While I agree with you, I'm certain that WS-I will define a constraint
> > that
> > wire signatures must be unique.
> The future may not resemble the past.

Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 03:48:55 UTC