Hi Russell.
A quick comment on your mail here before I take off.
WSDL 1.1 says nothing about how to do language bindings. It supports the ability to
say "this header with QName foo:bar is tied to this message part for this operation" -
that's it.
JAX-RPC has a chapter (11) which talks about one way ("explicit context") it COULD
work - it also describes another ("implicit context"). And note the sentence at the
beginning of the chapter : "This chapter describes non-prescriptive guidelines for the
mapping of the service context."
Web Services / SOAP / WSDL are not about language bindings. When you say "users use
it" what you mean is - they expect to be able to set and read the headers which have
been defined in the WSDL. No one is forcing us to make that happen in any particular
way, and I would rather make it happen in a way which maintains the orthogonality
which was designed into SOAP from the beginning between headers and requests/responses
in the body.
In other words - getHeader/addHeader would allow this functionality, with a little bit
more work on the part of the user (they'd need to know the QName instead of the part
name, and to call addHeader instead of adding a param), but without what I consider to
be an inappropriate pollution of the functional interface of a service. There are
also ways we can do it which make it easier, but still don't change the interface, but
addHeader/getHeader would get us there for now.
Talk to you later this afternoon!
--Glen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Butek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 8:31 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Again for explicitHeaderWork (Glen)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You guys just don't get it. While I agree that explicit
> headers - headers
> that are method parameters - are poor programming practice, WSDL 1.1
> supports it, JAX-RPC defines how it works, and users
> (including interop
> folks if I understand dims correctly, and WS-I) use it. It is not our
> place to enforce good programming style. If we disagree with
> it we should
> go to the spec folks. But we MUST implement explicit
> headers! Otherwise
> we cease to comply with various specs out there.
>
> Russell Butek
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Tom Jordahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 10/08/2002 10:50:52 PM
>
> Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Again for explicitHeaderWork (Glen)
>
>
>
>
> I am firmly in favor of a single Call object per stub.
> I have always wished for the stub logic to be *much* simpler.
> I think it is a reasonable requirement that stubs can't be shared
> across threads. I know that others might not.
>
> I also like the idea of a setHeader/getHeader API on the Call.
> I would think this would be a much more flexible design then
> adding the headers to the functional signature.
>
> Wouldn't the work be much simpler and more straightforward going this
> direction?
>
> --
> Tom Jordahl
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Daniels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:36 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Again for explicitHeaderWork (Glen)
>
>
>
> Sorry I wasn't available earlier, there is no network
> connection available
> from the interop - this means I also won't be around on
> Wednesday until
> late in the afternoon.
>
> > This work contains:
> > * Better rpc/literal support in the emitters and
> > runtime...as described
> > in previous notes.
>
> +1!
>
> > * Support to identify parameters and return values as
> > header values.
> > * Support in the serialization/deserialization to
> > read/write values
> > from the headers.
> > * Some minor api additions to the Call object to identify
> > parameters/return values as headers.
>
> -1...
>
> I still pretty strongly think that this is the wrong
> direction to be going
> in. Headers are orthogonal extensions (remember "orthogonal
> extensibility"?), and should be kept separate from the actual
> interface of
> a generated component.
>
> All that is missing for basic support of headers through the stubs is
> stub.addHeader()/clearHeaders() and something like
> stub.getResponseMessage(), all of which would seem to be
> possible if we
> just made the stubs have a 1-1 relationship with Calls. I
> talked to Sam
> about this today at the interop; I haven't looked back through the
> archives, but why aren't stubs associated with a single Call
> object and
> limited to use on a single thread? It would seem making this
> fairly simple
> change would enable a lot of the functionality people want re:
> setting/getting headers via stubs, and wouldn't do it in a way that
> polluted the APIs of the services.
>
> I think this approach also jibes with what Sylvain was trying
> to do a while
> back.
>
> Then later we can talk about different ways of acheiving the
> same sort of
> "syntactic sugar" that sticking the headers on the method
> APIs gives you.
> I have some ideas on this, but I want to take things one step
> at a time.
>
> Thoughts? Apologies in advance for not being around during the day to
> continue this discussion. If you want to check in the RPC/lit stuff,
> please go for it, but my -1 on the header stuff stands.
>
> --Glen
>
>
