The required flag is with us, except we do not have wsa:UsingAddressing in wsdl generation.
-- Chinthaka Glen Daniels wrote: > Hi Eran! > > Eran Chinthaka wrote: >> When you do not get an action header when addressing is engaged, u >> should throw a fault, according to the spec. I hope you know that part. > > Hm. Quick question here - I think there is (or at least should be) a > difference between a Module being "engaged" and "required", right? I'm > pretty sure we had this discussion before, but the way I think this > works is as follows: > > CHOICE 1 : Addressing engaged, "required" flag set false > > In this case the addressing handlers are deployed, and if someone sends > us addressing headers, we'll respond with addressing headers. When > sending as a client, we'll use addressing on a per-message basis as > determined by whether the client has set the correct properties. When > generating WSDL for a service that's been configured like this, we > should see "wsa:UsingAddressing" without the wsdl:required attribute. In > this configuration, we should NOT throw a fault if we receive a message > without addressing headers (unless we're on the client side and we sent > a request with addressing headers). > > CHOICE 2 : Addressing engaged, "required" flag set true > > This is like the last case except that we DO require addressing in all > received messages - therefore we should throw a fault any time we don't > see the addressing headers. > > CHOICE 3 : Addressing not engaged > > Nothing happens. > > ----- > > Does this sound right? The "required" flag above is a property in the > addressing module's context/configuration. > > --Glen >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
