Header blocks in wrpc:signature

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Header blocks in wrpc:signature

Jason T. Greene-3

Several toolkits allow for the mapping of a SOAP header to a parameter,
this is not allowed by the current description of wrpc:signature in
section 4.1.1.

Would it be possible to clarify this to allow for root elements that are
out of message bounds as specified by the appropriate binding extension?
This would allow for both http and soap headers.

Thanks,
-Jason

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jason T. Greene
Senior Software Engineer
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Header blocks in wrpc:signature

Jonathan Marsh-2

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
issue as CR082 [1].

The Working Group felt that the current best practice has evolved away from
including headers in the signature.  The current rpc:signature definition is
an interface (abstract) construct, headers are a binding (concrete)
construct, and to mix the two layers could have negative consequences on the
reusability of either part.

Perhaps most importantly, at this point in our process, it is hard to add
new functionality without slipping our already-far-too-long schedule.  The
Working Group thus did not introduce any changes in the spec in response.

Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of September, we will assume you
agree with the resolution of this issue.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR082


Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jason T. Greene
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:44 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Header blocks in wrpc:signature
>
>
> Several toolkits allow for the mapping of a SOAP header to a parameter,
> this is not allowed by the current description of wrpc:signature in
> section 4.1.1.
>
> Would it be possible to clarify this to allow for root elements that are
> out of message bounds as specified by the appropriate binding extension?
> This would allow for both http and soap headers.
>
> Thanks,
> -Jason
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Jason T. Greene
> Senior Software Engineer
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Header blocks in wrpc:signature

Jason T. Greene-3
In reply to this post by Jason T. Greene-3

I understand there is no time, however I disagree with the Working Group
for the following reasons:

1. The purpose of rpc:signature is to provide programming language
implementation details.  Thus, it can't really be called an abstract
definition.

2. Formalized Out-of-band data is a common concept in many protocols and
is not necessarily concrete. In other words, this is not specific to
soap headers; it can be mapped to many different protocol elements. I
just used headers as a common example.

3. This is a loss of functionality from WSDL 1.1, which will most likely
force proprietary extensions to WSDL 2.0.

-Jason

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 4:03 PM
> To: Jason T. Greene
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: Header blocks in wrpc:signature
>
> Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked
this
> issue as CR082 [1].
>
> The Working Group felt that the current best practice has evolved away
> from
> including headers in the signature.  The current rpc:signature
definition
> is
> an interface (abstract) construct, headers are a binding (concrete)
> construct, and to mix the two layers could have negative consequences
on
> the
> reusability of either part.
>
> Perhaps most importantly, at this point in our process, it is hard to
add
> new functionality without slipping our already-far-too-long schedule.
The
> Working Group thus did not introduce any changes in the spec in
response.
>
> Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of September, we will
assume

> you
> agree with the resolution of this issue.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR082
>
>
> Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com -
> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email] [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jason T. Greene
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:44 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Header blocks in wrpc:signature
> >
> >
> > Several toolkits allow for the mapping of a SOAP header to a
parameter,
> > this is not allowed by the current description of wrpc:signature in
> > section 4.1.1.
> >
> > Would it be possible to clarify this to allow for root elements that
are
> > out of message bounds as specified by the appropriate binding
extension?

> > This would allow for both http and soap headers.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Jason
> >
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Jason T. Greene
> > Senior Software Engineer
> > JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
>