W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org > July 2009

RE: [Bug 6724] Eventing: define resource representation

From: Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:30:58 +0000
To: "bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org" <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>, "public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org>
Message-ID: <511EC666AC22224E80B08441F9E8B1F102AA2B@TK5EX14MBXC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Doug,

As we see it, here are the pros and the cons associated with this proposal.

Pros
1) Being able to change the values of NotifyTo and Filter, which cannot currently be changed.

Cons:
1) Since users do not know which interface to use or why they would choose a particular one, then  it seems to be adding ambiguity to the spec.  Why would the WG add new text that makes things more ambiguous?

2) The proposal turns a subscription into a Transfer resource, and implies that all Transfer operations could potentially be used with it.  This is not true, since Create does not work with the proposed model.  Subscribe operations (the equivalent of the Create) go to the Event Source, not the Subscription Manager. This makes it very confusing for implementers.

3) No one has implemented this to see if it really is a good idea or works well.  Will enough WG members implement it or will it just slow down the standardization process?

We would like to propose that instead of creating a whole new model based on Transfer, we simply add the optional ability to change NotifyTo and Filter to the Renew operation which is already defined.  That way we can minimize changes, keep the current model intact, minimizes confusion and still get what IBM wants.

--Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-resource-access-notifications-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-notifications-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:55 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 6724] Eventing: define resource representation

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6724





--- Comment #4 from Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>  2009-07-21 18:54:38 ---
Minor tweak to the proposal (new text in ***)

Appendix B: Subscription Manager Resource Model

A Subscription Manager can choose to allow for retrieval and update of the
Expires time of a subscription through the use of the GetStatus and Renew
operations.  If it wishes it MAY also choose to expose the Subscription
Manager itself as a resource that can be accessed using resource access
specifications such as WS-Transfer *** - thus allowing access to the other
properties of the Subscription*** .  This specification places no
requirements on implementations with respect to which operations (if any)
that it supports.  Nor does this specification require that
implementations support updates to all properties of the resource.
However, if the Subscription Manager chooses to expose the Subscription
Manager as a resource then it MUST support the wse:Subscription schema
defined by this specification.  The outline for a Subscription Manager
resource is:
...


--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 21:31:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 July 2009 21:31:42 GMT