Comments on: WS-Addressing needs a Phone Book

by: Paul Downey

Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:41:43 +0000

I agree it sucks. Sticking with one namespace and strive to be backwards compatible might have been an option, at least until it hit the W3C. Which took far too long IMO.

As for splitting the spec in two, blame negotiations behind closed doors which led to the W3C charter. Many of us in the WG were only interested in SOAP, but some madcap fellows ‘out there’ apparently want to bind the core properties to other transports such as MQ and publish them as ‘bindings’ .. sheesh!

Adding simple stuff like Action, MessageID, the To/ReplyTo/FaultTo URIs is essential for SOAP, but the complexity that comes with Refps, and exploding EPRs injecting headers seems a bit too scary for my liking.

It’s tempting to roll out the 2004/08 version in services, but I dislike the lack of control and errata process surrounding that vendor spec, NB WS-I are looking at the W3C spec. Maybe not making this stuff too central until everyone implements the W3C standard, the WS-I publishes consensus in the form of BP 2.0 and the RAMPish profile or the lack of clothes on the WS-* emperor is finally apparent is the safest path forward.

by: Arjen Poutsma

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:00:24 +0000

Well, I do understand that it can take a while to get to a final specification. And I’m not complaining about that.

However, it is interesting to see that the non-final version were actually implemented. And not by the least (i.e. Microsoft). This makes the fact that there is a final version out there rather irrelevant, at least for the time being. If I would make a bet, I would bet on the August 2004 version of the spec, since that one is widely spread.

I wonder why the same thing didn’t happen with the SOAP 1.2 spec? It has multiple version as well. Perhaps someone can shed some light on that.

And you’re right, Spring has had many versions. Having said that: all version, including the upcoming 2.0 release, are fully backwards compatible. And the same goes for the JDK. Backwards compatibility is something you don’t find in WS-* specs.

by: Davanum Srinivas

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:34:48 +0000

How many versions of spring are there? How many versions of JDK are there? more importantly which versions of JDK, do you think people use in production environments? I agree with Dan. It has taken a bit for us (WS-ADDR WG) to get there, now there is a 1.0 out, it will take some time to switch to it. BTW, Axis2 supports May 2006.

thanks,
dims

by: Steve: Developing on the Edge

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:48:00 +0000

WS-A versions

Someone else notes that WS-Addressing versions are silly.

Early versions have the ReferenceProperties and the ReferenceParams, but that got stripped down later on; now you only have one but you also have to markup which address headers were generate…

by: Dan Diephouse

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 05:21:53 +0000

Yeah, it sucks. IMO, the Aug 2004 is the important one (and it is used in other specs). There has been some talk about supporting the 2003 version in xfire too, but not too many people seem to care about it. Everyone is trying to track up to 1.0 as well.

I don’t know why 5 versions is so surprising. It often takes us that long to get things right software, why should XML specs be that different?