Re: [soapbuilders] Multiple WS-Addresses in multiple namespaces
- View SourceOn 2/8/07, noah_mendelsohn@... <noah_mendelsohn@...> wrote:
> Steve Loughran writes:Sometimes I suspect complexity is the underlying problem. Like WSDL.
> > On 2/7/07, noah_mendelsohn@...
> > <noah_mendelsohn@...> wrote: ."
> > > Furthermore, and this is the part I really wish
> > > had been highlighted a bit more, nothing says
> > > these must be separate headers. So, IMO, if you
> > > want to say >in the specification for wsa:To<
> > > "if there are multiple wsa:To headers, here's
> > > the rule for how to process them all in the
> > > presence of the others", you can do so. If they
> > > are marked mU then you can be sure that, at
> > > least per the SOAP spec, their specifications
> > > can conspire to determine an order.
> > >
> > well, its a shame they dont.
> Yes, well, I have many concerns about how the higher level WS* specs were
> written, and whether they took sufficient care to use SOAP's details
> properly. I'm sorry that's in fact causing you trouble.
Its almost impossible for humans to write, so what you get is a mess,
compared to, say, COM IDL interfaces.
As for the higher order specs, well, I relish their inconsistency,
epecially WSRF, that has explicit dependencies on two different draft
WSA versions, and punts on the whole problem of whether not bulk
attribute read/write operations are atomic or not.
But that's an OASIS problem so I won't be giving my local TAG
representative a hard time, about it, or you. Liked your W3C
submission to the web of enterprisey services; interesting contrast to
the IBM 'we want a single stack' story.