W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2005

RE: LC review of WS-Addressing

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 12:38:12 +0200
To: "Bergersen, Rebecca" <Rebecca.Bergersen@iona.com>
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, "Bergersen, Rebecca" <rebeccab@iona.com>
Message-Id: <1115203092.3374.46.camel@Kalb>


I think that making ReplyTo optional would not change anything for the
more complex scenarios, it would just make one currently often used
address (anonymous) the default, which would at least initially result
in many shorter messages. This change would also remove a feature from
WS-Addressing that allows the sender of a message to indicate it doesn't
expect (nor allow) replies, which I don't think belongs to
WS-Addressing, but rather to the WSDL layer.

Best regards,


On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 16:09 -0400, Bergersen, Rebecca wrote:
> Hi, Jacek!
> I'm wondering if your comment about ReplyTo isn't too limiting.  In
> particular, you say, "Currently in WSDL 2 with its only available
> binding replies come back to the requester using the same communication
> channel, i.e. an HTTP request/response,...."
> You then make some suggestions for the standard based on the notion of
> there being one binding that uses the same communications channel.  That
> may be true for the moment, but it won't be for long.  There will be
> many possible bindings, some of which will use multiple channels.  I
> think it is too restrictive to limit the standard to only the resources
> that are available right now, which is the basis of your argument.
> Rebecca Bergersen
> Principal Architect, Middleware Standards
> rebecca.bergersen@iona.com
> -------------------------------------------------------
> IONA Technologies
> 200 West Street Waltham, MA 02451 USA
> Tel: (781) 902-8265
> Fax: (781) 902-8001
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Making Software Work Together TM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek.kopecky@deri.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 12:05 PM
> To: WS-Description WG
> Subject: LC review of WS-Addressing
> Hi all,
> I have reviewed WS-Addressing (you may see my comments at [1]) and I
> have identified two issues that are somewhat related to WSDL.
> First, discussed in [2], is about ReplyTo being required when a reply is
> expected. Currently in WSDL 2 with its only available binding replies
> come back to the requester using the same communication channel, i.e. an
> HTTP request/response, which would make the ReplyTo address being the
> ".../anonymous" URI, which might be overkill. I suggest that ReplyTo is
> made optional (with the default being ".../anonymous" which IMO doesn't
> change the intent of the spec but makes many messages smaller. 8-)
> I suggest that we (the WS-Desc WG) comment that ReplyTo should be
> optional even when replies are expected.
> Second, discussed in [3], is about action being required in all
> WS-Addressing-compliant messages. I believe that the intent of the WSDL
> Operation Name Mapping Requirement (ONMR) is that message bodies
> identify the operation so we don't need action URI (unless that is the
> extension that satisfies the ONMR) because WS-Addressing RECOMMENDS that
> the action URI identify an operation input, output or fault.
> So there are a few concrete points touching WSDL:
> 1) WS-Addressing seems to imply that interface operations (in
> particular, their inputs, outputs and faults) have stable semantics
> (because action identifies semantics through a WSDL operation) and I
> believe the WS-Description group has said previously that operations
> don't necessarily have semantics assignable to them.
> 2) WS-Addressing doesn't formulate the parts about action as an
> extension that would satisfy ONMR, which it probably should to play
> nicely with ONMR.
> 3) WS-Addressing action may be redundant in many scenarios due to other
> means of satisfying ONMR, namely unique elements which seem prevalent.
> I suggest that we decide whether operations have semantics (which would
> be supported by the view that interface extension keeps compatibility,
> which I heard from DaveO on the list) and if they don't, say that to the
> WS-Addressing group, and further I suggest that we suggest that action
> in ws-addressing be made optional and that it be formulated as an
> extension satisfying the ONMR, when used (appropriately).
> Hope it helps,
> Jacek
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2005Ma
> y/author.html
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2005Ma
> y/0010.html
> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2005Ma
> y/0011.html
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 10:38:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:50 UTC