[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] [Bug 134] New: mustUnderstand needs moving and defining
W3c Web service architecture defines web services as SOAP+WSDL. I see no reason to adopt a different definition. Martin. >-----Original Message----- >From: Green, Alastair J. [mailto:Alastair.Green@choreology.com] >Sent: 04 June 2004 13:46 >To: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: RE: [ws-caf] [Bug 134] New: mustUnderstand needs >moving and defining > > >I have already advocated the dropping of mustPropagate. > >If we can assume SOAP headers then mustUnderstand is a >property of the header. > >The conclusion would then be: there is no role for WS-Context >as a base class reflecting these two relationship attributes. > >* * * > >However, to be stringent: can we assume SOAP headers? WSDL is >our starting point: presumably at some point (in a future >fully-specified, architecturally-articulate world) our WSDL >message parts can map to unknown encodings and unknown >transfer protocols. > >Therefore, if we are to state: "this context must be >understood" then there must be a way of doing that without >relying on the SOAP header. (As you may guess, I'd love to be >argued out of that conclusion!) > >This would indicate that WS-Context contexts, viewed as a base >class, contain a must understand element. > >It would also indicate that there must be a "did not >understand" fault, defined by WS-Context. > >What do other TC members think? I have had great trouble >trying to find a coherent general statement on how to create a >WSDL binding that maps to any arbitrary encoding and any >underlying protocol. It seems that there are strong practical, >tools-based assumptions, which are not properly codified. > >Do we define Web Services as SOAP+WSDL, or just WSDL, in other words? > >Alastair > >-----Original Message----- >From: bugzilla-daemon@arjuna.com [mailto:bugzilla-daemon@arjuna.com] >Sent: 30 May 2004 17:45 >To: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: [ws-caf] [Bug 134] New: mustUnderstand needs moving >and defining > >http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=134 > > Summary: mustUnderstand needs moving and defining > Product: WS-Context > Version: 1.0 > Platform: PC > OS/Version: Windows 2000 > Status: NEW > Severity: normal > Priority: P2 > Component: Text and diagrams > AssignedTo: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org > ReportedBy: peter.furniss@choreology.com > QAContact: mark.little@arjuna.com > > >the mustUnderstand and mustPropagate attributes should be >moved to context and >don't belong on the service list. > >Since a context is (commonly) a soap header, the >SOAP:mustUnderstand attribute >is available, and mustUnderstand could be considered superfluous. > >However, the SOAP:mustUnderstand attribute could be >interpreted as meaning the >ws-context-specified aspects must be understood, and the >wsctx:mustUnderstand >means the context type must be understood. Thus >SOAP:mustUnderstand="1" >wsctx:mustUnderstand="0" wsctx:mustPropagate="1" would mean >the receiver was >guaranteed to propagate the context unchanged if it did not >recognise the >context type (or through a soap fault). (if it did recognise >the context type, >it could sort out the propagation for itself) > >This latter approach seems to add necessary functionality to >support the >two- >level function identification of ws-context (context namespace >of whole header; >context type as particular protocol). It may be better to rename >wsctx:mustUnderstand to avoid (human) confusion with the SOAP >attribute. > > > >------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- >You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]