W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > October 2006

RE: Questions on {http method} and {safety} extension properties

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:28:30 -0700
To: "'John Kaputin \(gmail\)'" <jakaputin@gmail.com>
Cc: <woden-dev@ws.apache.org>, "John Kaputin" <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>, <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004b01c6f148$80e4dea0$3901a8c0@DELLICIOUS>
Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
issue as a CR056 [1].

 

For the first part, the Working Group felt that the document was
sufficiently clear that the appearance of properties in the component model
depends on whether the builder of that component model understood that
extension or not.  It did not make a change in response to this part.

 

The typo has been fixed in the latest editor's draft [2].

 

Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of October, we will assume you
agree with the resolution of this issue.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR056

[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html
?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#safety

 

Jonathan Marsh -  <http://www.wso2.com> http://www.wso2.com -
<http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com

 

  _____  

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of John Kaputin (gmail)
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 1:11 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Cc: woden-dev@ws.apache.org; John Kaputin
Subject: Questions on {http method} and {safety} extension properties

 

Some questions arose while implementing HTTP extensions from Part 2
Adjuncts.

In 6.3.1 HTTP Method Selection at [1]  is there a default value for {http
method} if the {safety} property is "false"?

In 3.1 Operation Safety at [2] the {safety} property is defined as REQUIRED
with a default value of "false" if not specified in the WSDL, so is the
wording at [1] "...if a {safety} property ... is present ..." redundant
(i.e. {safety} will always be present)?

And there's a possible typo in section 3.1 at [2].  The assertion refers to
"...a safe interaction defined in Section 3.5 of [Web
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts
.html#webarch>  Architecture]". I think this should say Section 3.4 (i.e.
section 3.4 Safe Interactions).

[1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html
?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#_http_binding_default_rule_method 
[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html
#property-InterfaceOperation.safety 

regards,
John Kaputin
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 17:28:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:32 GMT