- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:50:50 -0400
- To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
At 01:40 AM 7/14/2004 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: >. . .That's not the point. If indeed some "extra" info (like WS-Addr's ><wsa:Action> header) is required for the server to correctly process >the message then of course the client must be informed that its >gotta comply. I fully expect to put that hint into WSDL (which WS-Addr >already does for WSDL 1.1)! Careful. Is it a hint (i.e., optional) or required? The difference is critical: If it is expected by the provider agent, then it needs to be marked as wsdl:required="true" in the WSD -- not optional. >. . . The issue is that the client must >be told everything it needs to know in order to get what it wants >done, done. Part of that info may be used for dispatch, part of it >to charge the client's credit card and the other part to offer him >some custom marketing stuff. . . . . Right. And there are two logical places for the information: either in the WSD or in the application semantics documentation. Interop problems occur if the information is omitted from both. Scenario X[1] was intended to illustrate that such omission is *likely* to occur if a toolkit automatically generates a WSD that doesn't specify an assumed convention as required, when in fact that convention *is* required for proper use of the service. References 1. Scenario X: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0300.html or: http://tinyurl.com/4krve -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 17:50:53 UTC