- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:50:14 -0000
- To: <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Intended actor/role for a header block would satisfy my concern - i think it's been discussed by the WG in the past: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0190.html looks like i've got even more catching up to do .. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Schlimmer [mailto:jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com] Sent: 29 October 2003 01:48 To: Glen Daniels; Roberto Chinnici; Sanjiva Weerawarana Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: RE: PROPOSAL: Drop interface/operation/(input|output)/@headers > From: Glen Daniels > > Correct. Essentially, the only kinds of headers that are worth specifying > with the mechanism that exists today are the "cookie-esque" ones - i.e. > "please send me the value 'xq57jb' back in the header 'myns:SeekritCode'. > Oh, and send it on every single message, too." Anything with more complex > semantics than that can't really be accommodated with the current syntax. > So I think it's a pretty simple matter to define a "sideband data" SOAP > module which simply takes a property consisting of a set of elements, and > inserts them as SOAP headers. Do you see any value in allowing the WSDL to specify actor/role, mustUnderstand, and/or relay for such 'cookie-esque' header blocks? --Jeff
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 03:52:55 UTC