- From: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:27:35 -0400
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <39A72E1EBF03EB44AACFD8036D1489F90167CD2F@p02exm01.macromedia.com>
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 action. 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 action. 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 [2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts. html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#soap-operation-decl-relate [3] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-wsdl.html ?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#actioninwsdl -- Jonathan Marsh -- jmarsh@microsoft.com <mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com> -- http://spaces.msn.com/members/auburnmarshes/ <http://spaces.msn.com/members/auburnmarshes/> --
Received on Friday, 30 September 2005 16:28:26 UTC