W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ddwg@w3.org > February 2008

RE: Final chance, for now, to offer opinion on Simple API [was Continuation of discussion from today's call]

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:47:22 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4C4A9F2@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Ignacio Marin" <ignacio.marin@fundacionctic.org>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>

I'm about to post a link to some Java which I think represents group
consensus, so if you could give your comments on that, that would be
great.

Thanks


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ignacio Marin [mailto:ignacio.marin@fundacionctic.org]
> Sent: 26 February 2008 14:45
> To: Jo Rabin; public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Final chance, for now, to offer opinion on Simple API
[was
> Continuation of discussion from today's call]
> 
> I shall answer this tonite.
> I have barely had the chance to be connected since I left yesterday's
> teleconference and my opinion will take some time to be expressed (it
> will not be only +/-1 or 0).
> 
> I'll respond in some hours (4 hours more or less, as I will be in a
> meeting outside CTIC and then in the University doing some teaching)
and
> I hope you'll accept it as being sent today O:-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nacho
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] En
> nombre de Jo Rabin
> Enviado el: martes, 26 de febrero de 2008 8:53
> Para: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Asunto: Final chance, for now, to offer opinion on Simple API [was
> Continuation of discussion from today's call]
> 
> 
> What follows is an edited version of what I sent yesterday. Apologies
> for sending it to the wrong list initially.
> 
> Aside from Rotan there have been no contributions. For the sake of
> getting a document ready for the Face to Face I am going to start work
> later this afternoon on a draft. In the absence of response I will
take
> it as a "+1" to all resolutions except C Alternative 1.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Contents:
> 
> a) what is the signature of the Evidence interface?
> b) how are underlying PropertyNames to be supported?
> c) Misc renames for consistency
> 
> Urgency:
> 
> The important thing is to resolve this TODAY [that was yesterday] so
we
> can have a substantive draft for discussion in Seoul next week,
> following which we will issue a First Public Working Draft which "with
a
> fair wind and a
> following sea" (colloq. = with luck) will also be a Last Call working
> draft.
> 
> Other Tasks
> 
> We also need to have debate on this list as to the wording of the
> remaining sections of the document - especially Conformance.
> 
> ---
> 
> Let's fix the interface first.
> 
> a) Evidence interface
> 
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION A: The Evidence interface is
> 
> void putHTTPHeader(String headerName, String value)
> String getHTTPHeader(String headerName);
> Boolean headerExists(String headerName);
> 
> A factory method is added to SimpleService:
> 
> Evidence newEvidence(HashMap<String, String> httpHeaders)
> 
> The reasoning is as follows:
> 
> The caller needs a way to put evidence into a known object in a
> standardised way. The API must support HTTP Evidence in the form of
> (case insensitive) HTTP Header Field name and (case sensitive) HTTP
> Header Field value, both strings (ASCII stings, actually, but, er,
let's
> leave that point aside unless we have to).
> 
> The retrieval methods are there so that an object created by some
other
> instantiation method can still be queried by the any implementation,
> although that might not be very efficiently, it does allow inter
> working.
> 
> It is likely that most Java implementations will want to allow the
> passing of a HashMap<String, String> derived directly e.g. from the
jsp
> infrastructure. However, in general this doesn't work as we can't rely
> on support of a HashMap<String, String> structure in other
environments
> / languages, so the factory method will probably look different in the
> IDL.
> 
> It ought also to be a documentation and conformance point that HTTP
> Header Field names are treated case insensitively.
> 
> I think we should call this SimpleEvidence (or HTTPEvidence) to
> distinguish it from any other sort of evidence.
> 
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION B: Rename Evidence to SimpleEvidence
> 
> b) Support for Property Terms distinct from PropertyRefs
> 
> Rotan has discussed this in clear terms that I could not hope to match
> [1].
> 
> In essence we have 2 proposals, Rotan's which is to overload the
> semantic of PropertyRef so it can be aspectless, and mine, which is to
> keep the PropertyName class and add a couple of factory methods - one
to
> PropertyName and the other to SimplePropertyValue, so we don't have to
> refer to any inheritance relationships between them.
> 
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION C ALERNATIVE 1: Add a method to SimpleService
> SimplePropertyValue  getPropertyValue(Evidence e, String aspect,
> SimplePropertyRef propertyRef) where the aspect parameter overrides
> whatever aspect is present in the propertyRef and throw exceptions
> appropriately
> 
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION C ALTERNATIVE 2: PropertyName remains in the API
and
> can be constructed from a PropertyRef by a factory method. A
PropertyRef
> can be created from a PropertyName by a factory method naming the
> aspect.
> 
> 
> c) Additional proposed resolutions
> 
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION D: In SimplePropertyRef rename getName to
> getPropertyName
> 
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION E: In SimplePropertyRef rename getAspect to
> getAspectName
> 
> PROPOSED RESOLUTION F: In SimpleService rename newPropertyRef methods
to
> newSimplePropertyRef
> 
> 
> That's it folks - pls send +1s etc. to this list asap
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 14:48:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:53 GMT