This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 996 - CDL Last Call comment - Choice of response message in WSDL
Summary: CDL Last Call comment - Choice of response message in WSDL
Status: CLOSED LATER
Alias: None
Product: WS Choreography
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Last Call Comment: Confirmed Closed (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Windows 2000
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: --
Assignee: Martin Chapman
QA Contact: Martin Chapman
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/p...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-01-10 15:50 UTC by Martin Chapman
Modified: 2005-05-17 22:01 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Martin Chapman 2005-01-10 15:50:54 UTC
In the Last Call version of the WS-Choreography specification several
exchange elements are allowed in an interaction element.  One is the request
going in one direction and the others must be in the reverse direction
(though is that rule stated explicitly?).  Only one of these is allowed to
be the 'normal' response message, all the others must be fault messages.
 
The case I am particularly interested in seems to be supported by neither
WS-Choreography at present nor WSDL 1.1 and I wonder if it should be.   (I
understand that WSDL 2.0 could support what I propose as an extension,
though I plan to make a comment into the WSD group with the aim of making it
a standardised feature.
 
 Suppose I have request - response protocol pair but there can be several
distinct response messages.  So I want to say the request message is A and
the response is B or C (or possibly fault message X or Fault message Y). 
 
I realise that of course you can write it as five (in this case) one way
interactions, but that looses the request response semantic.  You could also
re-write the protocol to only use a single response message and internally
to the response message have different parameter values that give the
semantics of B or C - and likewise one can re-write the Fault message to
combine X and Y, but why should one have to change the protocol to suit
WS-Choreography?
 
I would like to be able to write, for example, something like: 
<interaction name="ABCF" channelVariable="tns:aChannel" operation="a"> 
      <participate relationshipType="SuperiorInferior"
fromRole="tns:Superior" toRole="Inferior"/> 
      <exchange name="A" informationType="Atype" action="request">
              <send variable="tns:A"/>
              <receive variable="tns:A"/>
       </exchange>
       <exchange name="B" informationType="BType" action="respond">
              <send variable="tns:B"/>
              <receive variable="tns:B"/>
        </exchange>
        <exchange name="C" informationType="CType" action="respond">
              <send variable="tns:C"/> 
              <receive variable="tns:C"/>
        </exchange>
        <exchange name="F" informationType="FType" action="respond">
              <send variable="tns:F" causeException="true"/>
              <receive variable="tns:F" causeException="true"/>
        </exchange>
</interaction>
 
 I would be quite happy to have some sort of explicit 'choice' construct
around the multiple responds that are regular permitted responses and
therefore do not have cause exception set, or an implicit choice as we
currently have for multiple exception causing responses.

 

Best Regards,

Tony
Comment 1 Martin Chapman 2005-02-14 20:32:30 UTC
From meeting on 11-jan-05
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005Jan/att-0002/2005-01-
11_WS-Chor_Notes.txt:

Resolve later - a WSDL problem 
Comment 2 Greg Ritzinger 2005-04-12 20:27:56 UTC
RESOLVED FIXED BASED ON PROPOSAL IN MINUTES 2005-04-12
Comment 3 Greg Ritzinger 2005-04-25 18:03:33 UTC
PROPOSAL FOR 996 is to replace "When two or more respond exchanges are 
specified, one respond exchange MAY be of normal informationType and all others 
MUST be of Exception Type. There is an implicit choice between two or more 
respond exchanges" WITH "When two or more respond exchanges are specified There 
is an implicit choice between two or more respond exchanges"
Comment 4 Martin Chapman 2005-05-10 14:24:15 UTC
Tony has been informed of the group's decision [1] and we are awaiting 
confirmation. Category changed to LCC: Closed.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-
comments/2005May/0005.html
Comment 5 Martin Chapman 2005-05-17 22:01:48 UTC
Tony has confirmed this resolution is acceptable:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005May/0028.html