[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Assigning reply-to EPRs to partner links Was: [wsbpel] Question about section 6.2
My question to the TC is: is this view of WS-Addressing accurate?
Since the whole paragraph got removed, the WS-Addressing view issue becomes orthogonal for now. (However, I would be personally interested in discussing this topic in another email thread ...)
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Ron Ten-Hove wrote:I was puzzling over the following text in section 6.2:
References to a WS-BPEL processor initializing the EPR of a partnerRole relate to the infrastructure logic specific to that processor. A typical example is process deployment logic. This is in contrast to EPR initialization mechanisms outside a WS-BPEL processor, such as:
Business logic expressed in the process definition
Auto-assignment of EPR logic in an underlying EPR scheme, such as the reply-to feature in WS-Addressing
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...").
-Ron
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]