W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > October 2003

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

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:50:14 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1CE5@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
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:
looks like i've got even more catching up to do ..


-----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
> with the mechanism that exists today are the "cookie-esque" ones -
> "please send me the value 'xq57jb' back in the header
> Oh, and send it on every single message, too."  Anything with more
> semantics than that can't really be accommodated with the current
> So I think it's a pretty simple matter to define a "sideband data"
> module which simply takes a property consisting of a set of elements,
> 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?

Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 03:52:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:35 UTC