Glen, I won't argue with you about whether WSDL is inadequate. I happen to
agree that explicit headers is a bad programming practice. HOWEVER, WSDL
supports it, JAX-RPC supports it, and we have a number of users that now
require it (particularly WS-I which is why Rich and I dove into this work
in the first place).
The 'proper' programming practice is to use implicit headers, but I have no
idea how to correlate implicit headers defined in WSDL to runtime handlers.
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 10/07/2002 09:52:01 AM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Merge explicitHeaderWork into HEAD
My apologies, guys, but -1 for the moment.
I wrote up a big note on this last week and then Outlook crashed and ate
it, and I haven't yet had the time to redo it.
Here's the basics. I'm unconvinced that it is appropriate to change the
generated API for methods in the WSDL to include headers as parameters. I
don't think this adequately approaches the right architecture for headers,
which can have much more complicated semantics than just "stick this value
in this header".
Some of this is about WSDL's inadequacy in terms of specifying which
extensions are in use, but some of it is about the langague binding as
well. I understand the convenience factor involved in just tacking the
headers into the parameter list, but this, I believe, is really just a
trivial case of what headers are about, and we should spend some more time
coming up with a better framework for dealing with them. That framework
should, IMO, involve the fact that a) headers are extensions on top of
"normal" services, and should be expressed that way in the API, and b)
headers may involve more processing rules / code than simple value
transfers, though there should certainly be a simple syntax for simple
value transfers as well.
My -1 is based on the fact that once we include this code and are moving in
this direction, it will be harder and harder to redo it the "right" way.
Hence, I'd like some more discussion on this before checking the work in.
I'm sorry I haven't had time to fully write this up, or to write up some
alternative ideas, but Tom and I have been full-on with the interop stuff
recently. See the thread between Sylvain and I a few months ago on
axis-dev for some further ideas, though.
--Glen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:18 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [VOTE] Merge explicitHeaderWork into HEAD
>
>
> Please VOTE, Subject says it all....Merge explicitHeaderWork into HEAD
>
> Here's my +1.
>
> Thanks,
> dimms
>
> =====
> Davanum Srinivas - http://xml.apache.org/~dims/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
> http://faith.yahoo.com
>
