Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: WS-Addressing to W3C: Is the Tide Turning?
 On Aug 12, 2004, at 8:10 AM, Mark Baker wrote: > > It's certainly good to see everybody working together, but it's > unfortunate that it's on yet another WS-* spec with very few redeeming > qualities. Ok, maybe parts of sections 3 and 4 have some value, but > its > raison d'etre, section 2, is IMO entirely unnecessary (and worse, > actively harmful). URIs are perfectly adequate as message endpoint > references; nothing more is needed. > I suspect that a more detailed critique will be necessary to persuade the folks at W3C who will be weighing whether to invest resources in this activity. [Thankfully for my sanity, I am no longer among them!] How about a real analysis of the cases where the authors of the proposal clearly do NOT think URIs are adequate, especially when multiple (sometimes proprietary) transport protocols are in the mix? This seems to be the relevant material in the proposal: "In particular, this specification intends to facilitate the following usage scenarios: • Dynamic generation and customization of service endpoint descriptions. • Identification and description of specific service instances that are created as the result of stateful interactions. • Flexible and dynamic exchange of endpoint information in tightly coupled environments where communicating parties share a set of common assumptions about specific policies or protocols that are used during the interaction. To support these scenarios, we define a lightweight and extensible mechanism to dynamically identify and describe service endpoints and instances. Because of the current limits of the WSDL 1.1 extensibility model, the WSDL 1.1 service and port elements cannot be used to cover the use cases listed above. Endpoint references logically extend the WSDL description model (e.g., portTypes, bindings, etc.), but do not replace it. Endpoint references will be used instead of WSDL <service/> elements in the following cases: • Specific instances of a stateful service need to be identified or its instance-specific configuration details need to be transmitted. • A lightweight, self-contained description of a service endpoint needs to be communicated. In particular, this may be necessary when the details of the endpoint configuration are already shared by the communicating parties, but specific policy information needs to be added or updated, typically as a result of a dynamic configuration process." Note especially the bit about "dynamic generation" and "stateful interactions." From my perspective, it's fine and dandy to preach the gospel that services should be stateless and fully identified to service consumers, but the folks who wrote that spec are probably dealing with real-world customer situations where that doesn't work. Perhaps they have real objects (or maybe COBOL programs!) that maintain some state across operations exposed as services. The easiest way to keep things straight [if I understand the intentions here] is to route subsequence invocations of a service in that same context is to route the message back to the same object / program / whatever that is maintaining the state, and that can only be determined by the service supplier at runtime. I imagine that such a thing could be done within the URI framework, but I would be surprised if it is any simpler or more portable than what WS-Addressing proposes. But if a better solution TO THIS PROBLEM can be proposed, I'd like to see it described in detail. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
