Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [soapbuilders] Multiple WS-Addresses in multiple namespaces

Expand Messages
  • Steve Loughran
    ... Sometimes I suspect complexity is the underlying problem. Like WSDL. Its almost impossible for humans to write, so what you get is a mess, compared to,
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 8, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On 2/8/07, noah_mendelsohn@... <noah_mendelsohn@...> wrote:
      > Steve Loughran writes:
      >
      > > 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.
      >

      Sometimes I suspect complexity is the underlying problem. Like WSDL.
      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.

      -steve
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.