W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > June 2005

RE: In-Multi-Out MEP [was "WSDL 2.0 specification"]

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:06:45 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507D841CE@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <dbooth@hp.com>, "Shlomo Cwang" <scwang@tti-telecom.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Thank you for your comment, which we tracked as LC114 [1].  The Working
Group reaffirmed its decision not to define such a MEP in the core, nor
to provide further guidance on how to define MEP extensions.  If this
resolution is unacceptable please let us know within two weeks.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC114

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Booth
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 9:04 AM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Cc: Shlomo Cwang
> Subject: In-Multi-Out MEP [was "WSDL 2.0 specification"]
> 
> 
> [Comments received from Shlomo Cwang <scwang@tti-telecom.com>]
> 
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> From: Shlomo Cwang <scwang@tti-telecom.com>
> To: 'David Booth' <dbooth@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: WSDL 2.0 specification
> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:27:23 +0200
> 
> David,
> 
> By all means. Please, forward them to the public list. I hope the
> Working
> Group will reconsider these issues.
> The rationale for the In-Multi-Out MEP is the "bulk data retrieval"
> scenario
> we very often find in Telecom and non-Telecom applications. At the
> back-end,
> these services are usually implemented using an iterator design
> pattern,
> which would map very nicely to the In-Multi-Out MEP.
> As for the binding, we could potentially use a CORBA IIOP or JMS
> binding.
> Incidentally, I'm TTI's representative in the MTOSI (Multi-Technology
> Operations System Interface) Working Group of the Telemanagement
> Forum. I'm
> hoping to propose the use of WSDL 2.0 for the next phase version of
> the
> MTOSI interface, but I need to be sure that the WSDL MEPs match the
> operations' patterns of the interface.
> Thanks again,
> 
> Shlomo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 9:29 PM
> To: Shlomo Cwang
> Subject: Re: WSDL 2.0 specification
> 
> 
> Shlomo,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback and questions.  My answers are below.  May I
> also forward them to the public list public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> for
> Last Call comments, so that others can read them and the Working Group
> can  track them?
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 11:23, Shlomo Cwang wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > My name is Shlomo and I'm investigating the potential use of WSDL
> 2.0 for
> > the description of Telecom-based Web Services.
> > I know that you're involved in the WSDL 2.0 specification and I
> kindly
> > request your answers regarding some aspects of the spec which are
> not
> clear
> > to me. I appreciate your cooperation. The questions are:
> >
> > 1) Why has the In-Multi-Out pattern been deleted from the spec?
> 
> As far as I recall there were two reasons: 1. nobody in the Working
> Group had a particular need for it; 2. we don't have a binding that
> uses
> it.
> 
> >
> > 2) We need to describe an asynchronous Request-Multiple Response
> > interaction. How are we supposed to describe it without the In-
> Multi-Out
> > pattern?
> 
> There are several options, though I don't know if you would consider
> any
> of them good enough for your purposes.
> 
> 1. Use the in-out pattern (regular request/response), but specify an
> additional application-level constraint (outside of WSDL) that there
> may
> be multiple instances of the response.  Thus, the WSDL document itself
> would be insufficient for a client to make use of the service.  The
> client would *also* need to know of this additional application-level
> constraint.
> 
> 2. Define the request and response as two separate one-way operations,
> and specify application-level constraints (outside of WSDL) to
> indicate
> that one request may be followed by multiple responses.  From a WSDL
> perspective, each request would be a separate WSDL operation and each
> response would be a separate operation, but the application could view
> the combination of a request and multiple responses as representing a
> single application-level operation.
> 
> 3. Define a new MEP and corresponding binding extension for
> request-multi-response.
> 
> >
> > 3) The specification states that on top of the 8 pre-defined
> patterns,
> > additional ones may be defined, but it doesn't provide a formal
> > language/notation/syntax for the pattern extensibility. How is the
> user of
> > the spec supposed to define new ones?
> 
> Good point.  I think it would make sense to add some guidance on this
> to
> either the spec or the primer.  The basic answer:
> 
> 1. Look around on the Web to see if somebody else has already defined
> one that is close enough to what you want.
> 
> 2. Write an HTML document that clearly defines the MEP, and post it at
> a
> stable URL that will represent the formal (URL) name of the MEP, such
> as
> http://example.com/2005/ws/in-multi-out.
> 
> 3. Write a corresponding binding extension for your MEP.
> 
> 4. Publicize your new MEP and binding extension, so that others can
> implement and use it.
> 
> Note that the above procedure does *not* cause your MEP to become
> automatically recognized and usable by WSDL toolkits.  It simply
> provides a well-defined mechanism for naming and reusing them.
> 
> If you think the Working Group should reconsider its decision to drop
> the request-multiple-response MEP, then please send your comments to
> public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org.  Please also explain why, and describe
> your use case.
> 
> 
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Shlomo
> >
> >
> > Shlomo Cwang
> > Communication Solutions Manager
> > TTI Telecom
> > Petach Tikvah, Israel
> > Office +972 3 926-9736
> > scwang@tti-telecom.com
> >
> > Information in this e-mail and its attachments is confidential and
> may be
> > privileged. This e-mail is for the exclusive use of the intended
> > recipient(s). If you are not one of the intended recipients, you are
> hereby
> > informed that any use, disclosure, distribution, and/or copying of
> this
> > information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> information
> in
> > error, please inform the sender and then delete it from your system
> > immediately. Thank you.
> --
> 
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> 
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2005 21:07:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT