W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > February 2007

RE: LocationTemplate-1G totally hosed ;-)

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:42:52 -0800
To: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jonathan@wso2.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <036201c75163$65b6a7f0$3501a8c0@DELLICIOUS>

FTR, the Working Group this issue as a CR144 [1].

The latest editor's draft includes this fix [2, 3].

Unless you let us know otherwise within 2 weeks, we will assume you agree
with the resolution of this issue.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR144 
[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html
?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#soap-binding
[3]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html
?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#id2296689


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:09 AM
> To: 'Youenn Fablet'
> Cc: 'www-ws-desc'
> Subject: RE: LocationTemplate-1G totally hosed ;-)
> 
> 
> Below
> 
> Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com -
> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Youenn Fablet [mailto:youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:26 PM
> > To: Jonathan Marsh
> > Cc: www-ws-desc
> > Subject: Re: LocationTemplate-1G totally hosed ;-)
> >
> > Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been looking more closely at LocationTemplate-1G and find that
> > > the premise of the test was fundamentally flawed. That premise was
> > > that you can sufficiently test the functionality of whttp:location
> > > templates using the SOAP binding instead of the HTTP binding. That was
> > > incorrect!
> > >
> > > A more careful read of the spec shows that certain features are only
> > > in force when using the x-www-form-urlencoded serialization,
> > > specifically the automatic serialization of uncited elements as query
> > > parameters including the behavior of whttp:ignoreUncited.
> > >
> > > Thus the bindings AutoRemainder and AdditionalQueryParams are both
> > > wrong in assuming that query parameters will be added, and the
> > > bindings IgnoreUncited and Escaping are wrong in implying that
> > > whttp:ignoreUncited will have any force.
> > >
> > Can you elaborate more on this?
> > Section 5.10.4.2 tells that when soap-response is in use, section 6.7.2
> > and the x-www-form-urlencoded serialization should be followed. This
> > section describes how to build the request URL from whttp:location,
> > whttp:ignoreUncited and the message parameters.
> 
> I forgot about the SOAP Response MEP - must be some jetlag.  Nothing with
> an
> application/soap+xml media type will add uncited parameters, but I guess
> that doesn't include the SOAP Response MEP which doesn't have a media type
> on the request.  But in that case something is still broken:  {http ignore
> uncited} isn't among the parameters listed as supported by the SOAP
> binding.
> It doesn't appear in the interchange format, so it shouldn't really have
> been available for you to use to pass that testcase!
> 
> Also, with CR133 we made the request-response MEP correspond to the
> soap-response MEP, apparently including (with the above change) auto-
> adding
> query params and honoring ignoreUncited.  However, it seems to me much
> better to keep SOAP request-response parallel to serializing as
> application/xml under the HTTP binding, which would not add query
> parameters
> automatically and thus there's no need for ignoreUncited.
> 
> > In any case, if the current state is as you describe, is it a clear
> > decision from the working group?
> 
> I'm just trying to interpret the status quo, but perhaps that's not as
> clear
> as I thought it was...  I'll back out the changes (looks like part of the
> checkin failed anyway).
> 
> So here's a concrete proposal to fix the spec rather than the testcase:
> 
> In Section 5 change:
>   *  {http location} on Binding Operation components, as defined in
>      6.4 Binding Operations
> to:
>   *  {http location} and {http location ignore uncited} on Binding
> Operation
>      components, as defined in _6.4 Binding Operations_ and _6.7.2.2.2
>      Controlling the serialization of the query string in the request
> IRI_,
>      respectively.
> 
> In Section 5.10.4.1.1 change (pre-CR133 text):
>   The SOAP "http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/ImmediateDestination"
>   property takes the value of the WSDL {address} property of the Endpoint
>   component.
> 
> to:
>   The SOAP "http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/ImmediateDestination"
>   property takes the value of the WSDL {address} property, modified by
>   the {http location} property following the rules described in section
>   _6.7.1 Serialization of the instance data in parts of the HTTP request_.
> 
> 
> > > I apologize in advance for the instability of these testcases, but
> > > I've gone ahead and fixed and improved (I hope) them as follows:
> > >
> > >     * In order not to lose the few bindings that make sense under
> > >       SOAP, I've cloned LocationTemplate-1G into LocationTemplate-2G
> > >       which is an HTTP binding-only version. I twiddled a few other
> > >       details to keep everything sufficiently unique (e.g. service
> > >       name, whttp:location URLs, etc.)
> > >     * I've cut the AutoRemainder, AdditionalQueryParams, and
> > >       AutoQueryParams bindings from LocationTemplate-1G.
> > >     * Since we've clarified that the {http location} is engaged on
> > >       both soap-request and request-response MEPs, I cloned the
> > >       remaining 4 operations and test them on the request-response MEP
> > >       as well.
> > >     * While doing this, I noticed some service names were not unique
> > >       within the whole set of tests we're doing, which is inconvenient
> > >       for some implementations like Axis2. I updated
> > >       MessageTest-2G,3G,4G service names (which should affect the
> > >       component model more than the message tests.)
> 
> I'm still going to check-in these fixes.
> 
> > >
> > > This causes a bit of temporary churn in the component model tests as
> > well.
> > >
> > > **Jonathan Marsh** - http://www.wso2.com -
> > > http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
> > >
> 
Received on Friday, 16 February 2007 00:49:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:33 GMT