Re: [wsrm] [REL-50] {WAS Rel 44: Duplicate Elimination and Time To Live (TTL)}

[Sunil Kunisetty <Sunil.Kunisetty@oracle.com>]

Paolo Romano wrote:

> >    As per the un-resolved issue, sending a Fault for a pure wsdl one-way
> >    operation is wrong, A Fault shouldn't be sent, unless <output> or
> >     <output>/<fault> is specified (note that as per the wsdl schema you cannot
> >     specify a <fault> without an <output> definition).
>
> This is true, but you can always define a one way operation, carrying a fault.

 It will be okay to define "another" one-way operation to send fault as long
 as the Fault it not  piggy-backed on the Response for one-way responses.
 The new MEP which is a 'implied' MEP based on the user's MEP shouldn't
 be defined in the WSDL as it is WS-RM Client Side infrastructure thingy.

 I believe Alan & Scott are also echoing the same that the 'implied' or 'derived'
 MEP shouldn't be defined in the WSDL -  neither tweaking  the original WSDL
 nor creating a new one.

 I'll reply in detail to your other email you sent few days back as this discussion
 is not related to either REL-44 or REL-50.

 -Sunil

>
> The point is WSDL 1.1 is just not flexible enough to describe the rich MEPs a
> WS-RM can enable, especially in the case of asynchronous message flows. The
> choiche is among:
> - not to define any WSDL description, because the next version of WSDL should
> offer a solution to the current problems.
> - to use BEA's approach. All messages are one-way. Faults and ACKs, in
> particular, can at this point be received asynchronously. The main problem I can
> see with this approach is that if an application using WS-RM was designed to
> interact through a req-response MEP and it was advertized in its WSDL, then some
> kind of mapping should be defined between the application WSDL and the WS-RM's
> one.
> - to prevent this problem, only 2 asynchronous (one-way) operations could be
> defined: one to receive the ACKs and one to receive the faults. The WSDL of the
> WS-RM would describe only the sintactical structure of the WS-RM headers, and
> would be MEP agnostic, in the sense that no transmission primitive would be
> defined at WS_RM level. It would be up to the application to define its own
> MEPs, and the ws-rm processor should try to exploit the application flow of
> messages in order to piggyback its acks. In the case the application was layered
> over a WS-RM processor, the original application WSDL would also import the
> WS-RM WSDL, or just a sub-set of it in case not all ws-rm functionalities werw
> supported.
>
> Paolo
>
> >     May be we should use the
> >     word  generate an error/exception as that doesn't always imply sending the
> >     Fault to the initial sender in the SOAP response.
> >
> >  -Sunil
>
> --
> Paolo Romano
>
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php