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

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

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:19:29 -0800
To: "'Jeffrey Schlimmer'" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, "'Glen Daniels'" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, <paul.downey@bt.com>, <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <074f01c39fe3$e9c68540$fe2b000a@beasys.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Schlimmer [mailto:jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 9:01 AM
> To: David Orchard; Glen Daniels; paul.downey@bt.com; alewis@tibco.com
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: PROPOSAL: Drop 
> interface/operation/(input|output)/@headers
> > From: David Orchard
> > 
> > Indeed.  But how does WSDL express the difference between the
> > "application"
> > components and the "infrastructure" components?  I haven't seen any
> syntax
> > yet that shows this differentiation.  To a certain extent, 
> the problem
> is
> > that the "infrastructure" components are not targetted at the end
> > application, rather something else like the security handler of the
> > application.  
> Is there a compelling need to distinguish message processing roles
> orthogonally to, or more generally than, SOAP actor/role?

I don't really know.  SOAP actor/role might be sufficient, though that
doesn't seem to be the current model.  Currently I don't see much use of
WSDL for expressing that a particular header must be targetted at a role.
Security is a good example where the role typically seems to be undefined or
set to ultimaterecipient.  I could see the role being used to differentiate
beween the application portion vs infrastructure by the endpoint.  I also
don't know whether role is an "abstract" thing like an interface, or a
concrete thing like a endpoint.  I could see an interface expressing that a
security header is required with a given message, and then the endpoint
saying that the security header role must be "securityhandler" as that's
they way it intends to disambiguate.  

I think it gets down to whether the ultimate recipient is the application or
the node.  And I think there are 2 questions be conflated: 1) Which
components must be present for delivery to the ultimate recipient address,
and 2) Which components are consumed by the application within the ultimate
recipient.  I think there are potentially 2 solutions: 1) Use role to
differentiate between roles within the ultimate recipient; 2) Use some new
construct to differentiate between "actors/intermediaries" within the
ultimate recipient.  A trivial #2 would be a sub-role of "application" or
"infrastructure".  These might also apply to intermediary nodes as well.

> > As we (the industry and stds bodies) haven't really talked
> > about intermediaries in this context, there is no guidance on how to
> > structure wsdl nor whether to use soap:role to disambiguate.  
> Agreed. Is @role 1:1 with intermediary? 

Good question.

> > Nor is there
> > any guidance whatsoever on how to use WSDL in the face of
> intermediaries,
> > either in the message path or even within the ultimate receiver.
> Agreed. Would it be sufficient to say transparent 
> intermediaries do not
> need WSDL, that opaque intermediaries would have their own WSDL, and
> that a single WSDL document expressed the aggregate requirements of a
> SOAP node implementing one or more distributed roles?

When you say "intermediaries", do you mean things targeted with Role, as you
asked earlier?  I think I agree with where you are going.  That the WSDL
defines the aggregate interface to a node with potentially multiple roles.
I ask the question earlier about how those roles are "bound" as well.


Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 14:20:41 UTC

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