RE: [wsrf] Issue 30 resolution text question

[Tim Banks <tim_banks@uk.ibm.com>]

I agree we should have mechanical mappings, but I propose we use the recipe
already described in section 3.3.2 of WS-Addressing, namely

[target namespace]/[port type name]/[input|output name]

Of course, we are using the namespace and portType name to indicate the
base portType, and not whatever is derived from it by aggregation.

So Latha would use:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/2004/11/wsrf-WS-ResourceLifetime-1.2-draft-04.wsdl/
ImmediateResourceTermination/DestroyRequest

for the input to the destroy operation.

The relationship of the message name attribute to the operation is a
separate issue, I think, though a  convention for this is useful. However,
the specs already seem to use Request and Response suffixes, yes?


Regards, Tim Banks
IBM TP Architecture & Technology. Hursley, UK.
Phone: External +44 1962 815639, Internal 245639

"Murray, Bryan P." <bryan.murray@hp.com> wrote on 09/11/2004 20:07:32:

> Since Tom and Latha are using different mappings to create the
> SOAPAction, I would like to propose one that all specs use.
>
> The SOAPAction URI is created by:
>    <WSDL namespace> + '/' + <WSDL message name>
>
> Latha would use:
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/2004/11/wsrf-WS-ResourceLifetime-1.
> 2-draft-04.wsdl/Destroy
>
> Tom would use:
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/2004/11/wsrf-WS-ServiceGroup-1.2-
> draft-03.wsdl/Add
>
> Using this method, the mapping is purely mechanical.
>
> One more issue related to SOAPAction and wsa:Action is that wsa:
> Action has a different value for every message. In order to address
> this issue, I think we need to list 2 values for SOAPAction for
> every request-response message exchange. I recommend that the WSDL
> message elements be named <operation> and <operation>Response, where
> "<operation>" is replaced with the name of the WSDL operation. In
> order to assure the mechanical mapping to SOAPAction, we should make
> sure to name our request messages <operation> and our response
> messages <operation>Response.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srinivasan, Latha
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:35 AM
> To: 'Tom Maguire'; wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com
> Subject: RE: [wsrf] Issue 30 resolution text question
>
> I interpreted the Issue Resolution to be whatever is going to be in
> the "Action" part of the SOAP header. So, in my case, for the
> "Destroy" message, my normative text would be:
>
>
> "If a SOAPAction URI is included in the transport portion of the
> message, it MUST contain the URI:
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/2004/11/wsrf-WS-ResourceLifetime/Destroy";
>
> I would like to be consistent with the other specs. in resolving this
issue.
> -Latha
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Maguire [mailto:tmaguire@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 2:22 PM
> To: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com
> Subject: [wsrf] Issue 30 resolution text question
>
>
>
>
>
> Quick question.  Issue 30 leaves the structure of the URI open to the
> editor.  Do we want to have the URI match the specification versioning
> structure?  For example in WS-ServiceGroup for the Add operation:
>
>    If a SOAPAction URI is included in the transport portion of the Add
>    message, it MUST contain the URI
>
>
http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/2004/11/wsrf-WS-ServiceGroup-1.2-draft-03/
>    Add.
>
>
> Tom
>
> Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created
them.
> -Albert Einstein T o m   M a g u i r e STSM, On Demand Architecture
>
>
> Poughkeepsie, NY  12601
>
>