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

RE: Advice needed on WSDL LC issue LC301, granularity of SOAP action.

From: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:27:35 -0400
Message-ID: <39A72E1EBF03EB44AACFD8036D1489F90167CD2F@p02exm01.macromedia.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
My concern is that changing the WSDL SOAP action to have message
granularity isn't such a great thing from the WSDL point of view.


We did not have a discussion on this (or I missed it) and I don't much
care for moving it.

Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development


From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 6:36 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: Advice needed on WSDL LC issue LC301, granularity of SOAP


The WS-A WG agreed moments ago that this change is acceptable to them.



From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 9:43 AM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Advice needed on WSDL LC issue LC301, granularity of SOAP


The WSDL WG is addressing a comment on the granularity of SOAP action
[1].  Currently the WSDL SOAP bindings provide control over value of
SOAP Action through the {soap action} property and associated
wsoap:action attribute - on Binding Operations.  WS-A's wsaw:Action
attribute is associated with individual messages instead of at the
operation level.


It appears that the granularity of these facilities should be the same,
especially in light of the requirement that SOAP action and WS-A
[action] have the same value in messages that include both.


Before changing our spec (moving wsoap:action to message references) the
WSDL WG wanted to confirm with the action experts in your group that
message-level granularity for wsaw:Action matches both best and existing
practices, and that keeping the placement of these two facilities
consistent in WSDL 2.0 would be a good idea.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/#LC301




--  Jonathan Marsh  --  jmarsh@microsoft.com
<mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com>   --
<http://spaces.msn.com/members/auburnmarshes/>   --

Received on Friday, 30 September 2005 16:28:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:52 UTC