W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

Re: "operation name" .. an alternate proposal

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 19:16:51 +0600
Message-ID: <19f401c465b7$0086c7b0$84614109@LANKABOOK>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

"David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org> writes:
> At 12:31 PM 7/8/2004 -0700, Prasad Yendluri wrote:
> >. . . My preference would be towards a mechanism that captures [the
> >operation name] in the message itself . . . .
> I agree that this would be conceptually cleaner layering, having the
> message body include all and only the information that is semantically
> relevant to the application (since the operation name is clearly
> semantically relevant if it is used to dispatch).  However, my perception
> is that this isn't the direction the industry winds are blowing.

At least in WS-Addressing this information does indeed flow as
a part of the message: see the <wsa:Action> header (and the
<wsa:RelatesTo> header).

However, we're not about to expand our scope to cover that space ..
so I am not looking for us to define a SOAP header for these .. I was
looking for an abstract thing that works and a concrete thing that we
already have (soapAction).

Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 09:17:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:43 UTC