Arun Gupta wrote:
> Vivek,
>
> cil
>
>> There was earlier discussion and issue[1]on jaxws about generating
>> wsdl binding and port for SOAP/TCP. As I understand that the
>> generated WSDL will have wsdl:binding/soapbind:binding_at_transport with
>> an implementation specific TCP transport URI. This will tell the
>> runtime whether the transport is TCP vs HTTP.
> And also the soap:address/_at_location will begin with "tcp" instead of
> "http".
>
>>
>> Considering this fact
>>
>> 1. We don't need to generate WS-Policy assertion for tcp transport
>> 2. Can we use BindingType() annotation on the endpoint class or SEI
>> for SOAP/HTTP and TCP transport?
>> - For example the URI for BindingType could be something like:
>> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/http?tcp - soap 11/http
>> and soap11/tcp bindings
> The first analogy, to me, with "?tcp" is "?wsdl". "?wsdl" indicates
> the WSDL advertised by the endpoint where as "?tcp" does not fit well
> with the purpose that the former serves.
>
> Secondly, the typical "?" syntax is to augment the main URI with
> name/value pairs which in this case is SOAP/HTTP. IMHO adding SOAP/TCP
> binding does not relate well to this syntax as well.
>
Ok. My main point was to have a URI that identifies SOAP with HTTP and
TCP transport binding and corresponding ports. Its implementation
specific and as long as we have consistent way to denote such multiple
bindings I dont care how they look like.
> Without name/value, we cannot extend this syntax to specify additional
> transport bindings in the future, for example SMTP in addition to HTTP
> and TCP.
>
> I think we should instead introduce a new proprietary binding id like:
>
> http://java.sun.com/wsdl/soap/tcp
>
> This binding could assume that SOAP/HTTP is always generated. In case,
> we want multiple bindings to be supported then we may have to define
> other binding ids. I understand this is not scalable but how realistic
> is the case where multiple bindings would need to be generated ?
>
>> http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP/ - soap12/http and
>> soap12/tcp bindings
> How would you distinguish whether only one or both are required ? I
> forgot to put '?tcp" above.
>
>
>
> http://java.sun.com/wsdl/soap/tcp
>
>> - This will not require uses of wsit config file to indicate
>> TCP feature is enabled and the generated WSDL should have TCP
>> transport binding
> Why this information needs to be specified in WSIT config file ?
Thats how it works now (<tcppolicy:TCPEnabled/> in wsit config). My
proposal is that we dont need it if we use BindingType and a binding id
to identify tcp with existing soap/http or just soap/tcp.
>
>> - This will make it easy generating TCP transport binding for each
>> SOAP/HTTP port in the generated WSDL.
>>
>> With this approach, JAXWS can simply determine that it needs to
>> generate SOAP/TCP binding. Comments?
> I tend to agree with the overall approach, we just need to refine the
> syntax.
>
Yes. Basically we need 3 bindings ids, one for soap11+http+tcp, another
for soap 12+http+tcp and the last one thats only soap over tcp.
-vivek.
> -Arun
>
>>
>> -vivek.
>> [1]https://jax-ws.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=40
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_wsit.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_wsit.dev.java.net
>>
>