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

Re: [Bug 6730] Transfer: Redundant SOAP Processing Advice

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:33:36 -0400
To: Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
Cc: Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>, "david.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com" <david.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com>, "member-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <member-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, member-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, "public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF4E6FF5DE.3C2091A9-ON85257590.0007D41D-85257590.000894D4@us.ibm.com>
Ram wrote:
...
> 1. Section 3.1
> 
> The sentence
> 
> "Implementations may respond with a fault message using the standard
> fault codes
> defined in WS-Addressing (e.g., wsa:ActionNotSupported). Other 
> components of the outline above are not further constrained by this 
> specification."
> 
> should not be removed.

Why? This really doesn't say anything other than "Hey, you may fault
for some reason". Isn't this true of all message in all WS-* specs?
Why does this need it?

> 2. Section 3.2 
> 
> The sentence
> 
> "In addition to the standard fault codes defined in WS-Addressing, 
> implementations MAY use the fault code wst:InvalidRepresentation if 
> the presented representation is invalid for the target resource. See
> 5 Faults. Other components of the outline above are not further 
> constrained by this
> specification." 
> 
> should not be removed.

I agree that the part about InvalidRepresentation probably should
remain but I think the WSA part can be dropped since, like above,
that just normal stuff.  So, how about just:

Implementations MAY use the fault code wst:InvalidRepresentation if
the presented representation is invalid for the target resource. See
5 Faults. Other components of the outline above are not further 
constrained by this specification.

> In addition to Dave's proposal plus the suggested changes above, I 
> suggest the following:
> 
> 1. A few paragraphs in section 3.3 (Delete) need to be removed:
> 
> "Extension specifications MAY define extensions to the Delete 
> request, enabled by OPTIONAL header values, which 
> specifically control preconditions for the Delete to succeed and 
> which may control the nature or format of the response. Since the 
> response may not be sent to the original sender, extension 
> specifications should consider 
> adding a corresponding SOAP header value in the response to signal 
> to the receiver that the extension is being 
> used."
> 
> "Specifications which define extensions for use in the original 
> Delete request which control the format of the 
> response MUST allow processing the Delete message without such 
extensions."

+1

> 2. A few paragraphs in section 4.1 (Create) need to be removed:
> 
> "Extensions specifications MAY also define extensions to the 
> original Create request, enabled by OPTIONAL SOAP 
> headers, which constrain the nature of the response, as discussed in
> remarks on the CreateResponse below.Similarly, 
> they may require headers which control the interpretation of the 
> wst:Create as part of the resource creation 
> process."
> 
> "Such specifications MUST also allow processing the Create message 
> without such extensions."
> 

+1

-Doug
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 01:34:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:17:54 GMT