Details

    • Type: Sub-task Sub-task
    • Status: Reopened
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: Addressing
    • Labels:
      None

      Activity

      David Illsley created issue -
      David Illsley made changes -
      Field Original Value New Value
      Status Open [ 1 ] In Progress [ 3 ]
      Hide
      David Illsley added a comment -

      Completion of this is waiting on resolution of a number of CR issues by the W3C working group (CR31,32,33) detailed at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/

      Show
      David Illsley added a comment - Completion of this is waiting on resolution of a number of CR issues by the W3C working group (CR31,32,33) detailed at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/
      Davanum Srinivas made changes -
      Component/s Addressing [ 12311323 ]
      Hide
      Davanum Srinivas added a comment -

      David,

      Is this done now? can i close the issue?

      thanks,
      dims

      Show
      Davanum Srinivas added a comment - David, Is this done now? can i close the issue? thanks, dims
      Hide
      David Illsley added a comment -

      No it isn't, the WG is still working on a solution.
      David

      Show
      David Illsley added a comment - No it isn't, the WG is still working on a solution. David
      Hide
      Davanum Srinivas added a comment -

      Any updates on this David. Can we close this now?

      Show
      Davanum Srinivas added a comment - Any updates on this David. Can we close this now?
      Hide
      David Illsley added a comment -

      Thw wsaw:Anonymous element has been removed from the spec, so I won't bem implementing it,
      I'll raise a JIRA for support of the policy assertion which replaces it when I get a chance (I'm already implemented most of it).

      Show
      David Illsley added a comment - Thw wsaw:Anonymous element has been removed from the spec, so I won't bem implementing it, I'll raise a JIRA for support of the policy assertion which replaces it when I get a chance (I'm already implemented most of it).
      David Illsley made changes -
      Resolution Won't Fix [ 2 ]
      Status In Progress [ 3 ] Closed [ 6 ]
      Hide
      Tammo van Lessen added a comment -

      According to the candidate recommendation from 2006 for the WS-A WSDL binding [1], this element is present again. I consider this an important feature and suggest to reopen this issue.

      [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-wsdl/#anonelement

      Show
      Tammo van Lessen added a comment - According to the candidate recommendation from 2006 for the WS-A WSDL binding [1] , this element is present again. I consider this an important feature and suggest to reopen this issue. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-wsdl/#anonelement
      Hide
      Deepal Jayasinghe added a comment -

      I think we should look into what Tammo van Lessen has pointed out.

      Show
      Deepal Jayasinghe added a comment - I think we should look into what Tammo van Lessen has pointed out.
      Deepal Jayasinghe made changes -
      Resolution Won't Fix [ 2 ]
      Status Closed [ 6 ] Reopened [ 4 ]
      Hide
      David Illsley added a comment -

      That CR was superceded by WS-A metadata [1], so the relevant policy assertion really should be used instead.

      Tammo, does that satisfy your use-case?

      [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-metadata/

      Show
      David Illsley added a comment - That CR was superceded by WS-A metadata [1] , so the relevant policy assertion really should be used instead. Tammo, does that satisfy your use-case? [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-metadata/
      Hide
      Andreas Veithen added a comment -

      ... in which case this issue is actually related to AXIS2-5022.

      Show
      Andreas Veithen added a comment - ... in which case this issue is actually related to AXIS2-5022 .
      Hide
      Tammo van Lessen added a comment -

      David, it would probably satisfy my personal use case, as long as the anonymous constraints are covered by that implementation as well.

      From a conceptual point of view however, I think Axis2 should either fully support ws-addr-wsdl or not at all. Currently it supports only wsaw:usingAddressing but not the constraints to steer the single/dual channel behavior, so it provides a partial implementation, which is IMO the worst option. If I'm not mistaken both specs provide different ways to the same behavior, so from a framework perspective I would vote for supporting both (like e.g. both WS-A versions are supported) to reach a broader audience.

      From the non-framework but conceptual point of view I of course also prefer the WS-Policy variant because it follows the WS architecture principles, but as you know, defining policies is not as easy and mostly also not as explicit as it could be done with explicit flags. That's why I would prefer to support both options. Looks like JAXWS RI is also supporting both [1]

      [1] http://jax-ws.java.net/nonav/2.2.1/docs/wsaddressing.html#Describing_WS_Addressing_in_WSDL

      Show
      Tammo van Lessen added a comment - David, it would probably satisfy my personal use case, as long as the anonymous constraints are covered by that implementation as well. From a conceptual point of view however, I think Axis2 should either fully support ws-addr-wsdl or not at all. Currently it supports only wsaw:usingAddressing but not the constraints to steer the single/dual channel behavior, so it provides a partial implementation, which is IMO the worst option. If I'm not mistaken both specs provide different ways to the same behavior, so from a framework perspective I would vote for supporting both (like e.g. both WS-A versions are supported) to reach a broader audience. From the non-framework but conceptual point of view I of course also prefer the WS-Policy variant because it follows the WS architecture principles, but as you know, defining policies is not as easy and mostly also not as explicit as it could be done with explicit flags. That's why I would prefer to support both options. Looks like JAXWS RI is also supporting both [1] [1] http://jax-ws.java.net/nonav/2.2.1/docs/wsaddressing.html#Describing_WS_Addressing_in_WSDL

        People

        • Assignee:
          David Illsley
          Reporter:
          David Illsley
        • Votes:
          0 Vote for this issue
          Watchers:
          1 Start watching this issue

          Dates

          • Created:
            Updated:

            Development