Stanley,
The WSDL should define the bits that the application code needs to know about. It should *not* define the bits that the infrastructure (e.g., handlers and intermediaries) is responsible for implementing (i.e ., headers). The infrastructure requirements should be defined using WS-Policy.
Now, admittedly, WS-Policy is not yet a standard, and it has limited support by application platforms, but that doesn't change the fact that you really shouldn't define your headers in the WSDL.
By the way -- yesterday W3C acknowlegded the submission of the WS-Policy specifications (WS-Policy and WS-PolicyAttachments).
See http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/06/ .
The WSDL should define the bits that the application code needs to know about. It should *not* define the bits that the infrastructure (e.g., handlers and intermediaries) is responsible for implementing (i.e ., headers). The infrastructure requirements should be defined using WS-Policy.
Now, admittedly, WS-Policy is not yet a standard, and it has limited support by application platforms, but that doesn't change the fact that you really shouldn't define your headers in the WSDL.
By the way -- yesterday W3C acknowlegded the submission of the WS-Policy specifications (WS-Policy and WS-PolicyAttachments).
See http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/06/ .
On 4/27/06, Ruchith Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Hi Stanley,
On 4/27/06, Stanley Stanev < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes, that's what I was referring
>
> I aksed Axis already, but do you know by chance if I am able to generate a WSDL
> that contains my own implicit headers using Axis 1.x?
I don't think you can generate such a WSDL with Axis 1.x where is
defines headers to be included .... maybe an Axis 1.x expert can
please correct me on this of I'm wrong? (CCed to Axis-user list)
Thanks,
Ruchith
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
