wsbpel message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 87 - Optional SOAP Headers
- From: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:38:20 -0800
Hi
Yaron,
Thank you for
creating a new issue separated from 77. I think it will simplify our
discussions. Intermediaries have always been a favorite subject of mine, so I'll
give you my feedback on this one ;-).
I can understand
this issue in two different ways:
1. The issue is not
limited to SOAP headers and to the presence of SOAP
intermediaries.
This is just the way
WSDL 1.1 is defined. Any part of an abstract interface is optional when it comes
to binding (and limiting the definition of abstract interface to the portType,
by the way, does not change this fact a single bit).
I am not sure we
need to do anything here. BP 1.0, sec. 5.3.3, gives a specific recommendation in
the case of portType parts (but, as I mentioned in the past, it is just a
SHOULD, so even BP 1.0 compliant deployments can have this problem). So we could
say that if a WSDL/BPEL designer follows BP 1.0, then the problem would not
appear with parts from the portType. Otherwise, the developer must be
prepared to have undefined/unused parts at runtime.
2. The issue should
be understood only in the specific context of SOAP
intermediaries.
In other words,
because of the existence of intermediaries along the SOAP path, some headers are
not intended for a particular end point (either a service port or a service
client) and are never going to appear at that end point (they are only used
in other segments of the path which do not touch that end
point).
This is a
manifestation of a much serious problem with WSDL 1.1: it simply cannot handle
SOAP intermediaries in the general case. Whenever intermediaries are
present, there is simply no way to specify in WSDL to which
segment of the overall SOAP path a binding refers to. This issue applies to
intermediaries as they are described by the binding, but it also applies to the
protocol chosen by the binding and to the address associated with the port.
(The protocol and address problems, of course, do not appear at the BPEL
language level, but they are part of the same basic problem WSDL 1.1 has when
dealing with intermediaries).
Ugo
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]