[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] [REL-50] {WAS Rel 44: Duplicate Elimination and Time To Live (TTL)}
> 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. 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]