[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Question about section 6.2
I was puzzling over the following text in section 6.2:
The second bullet
seems a bit odd. If a wsa:ReplyTo header contains something other than
the anonymous URI, then the SOAP processor sends the response to the
specified endpoint, as per the W3C recommendation "Web Services
Addressing 1.0 - SOAP Binding" (9 May 2006). The second bullet says
that a WS-BPEL implementation might elect to make this "sticky", by
copying the EPR in the wsa:ReplyTo header to the appropriate
partnerLink. I'm not sure this actually complies with the cited
recommendation from the W3C, since it calls for SOAP processors to
treat lack of a wsa:ReplyTo header as the same as using such a header
with the anonymous URI (meaning send the response to the requestor). It also looks
strange since the wsa:ReplyTo header affects responses to received
requests. It does not imply a change to the EPR of the partnerRole in
the partnerLink (the EPR where request messages for <invoke>s
performed by the process on that partnerLink are sent). A request
received containing a wsa:RepyTo header is associated with the "myRole"
endpoint of the partnerLink. I realize this
part of WS-BPEL isn't normative language, but it seems that we are
encouraging implementors to contemplate being non-compliant with
another specification, and perhaps promoting confusion about EPRs and
partnerLinks. My question to
the TC is: is this view of WS-Addressing accurate? If so, then I
suggest we simply strike all the text following the comma in the second
bullet ("such as the..."). |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]