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

Re: Issue 6403: Enumertion Policy - some things for us to consider

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:30:16 -0400
To: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFAFB69966.3E5B26FC-ON8525759F.005A6017-8525759F.005AABB7@us.ibm.com>
Katy,
1 - probably a consistency error, yes.
2 - I assumed that the lack of any FilterDialects in the Policy (but the 
presence of the WEnum policy assertion) meant no dialects were supported 
(or at least, no statements were being made about any) so the client 
should not be surprised if the service faults the use of the Filter 
element.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
04/21/2009 10:10 AM

To
public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
cc

Subject
Issue 6403: Enumertion Policy - some things for us to consider







Just wondering whether we need to consider the following in the context of 
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6403 proposal?: 

1) The wsenp:WSEnumeration policy indicates that WS-Enumeration MUST be 
used when communicating with this endpoint. I think this is shorthand for 
defining the data source enumeration operations at the endpoint (i.e. 
enumerate, pull, renew, getstatus and release).   
Because of the 'MUST', would it therefore be an error to attach 
wsenp:Ennumeration policy wsp:Optional=FALSE to an endpoint if that 
endpoint also supported other (non-enum) operations? 

2) We should consider whether an endpoint must advertise all the filter 
dialects that it supports using: 
  <x:FilterDialect xmlns:x="xs:anyURI" wsp:Optional="true"/> 
If we don't mandate that all supported filter dialects are advertised in 
the policy, do we need a mechanism for an enumeration endpoint to indicate 
that it does not support filtering at all (i.e. including a filter on the 
enumerate verb will return wesn:FilteringNotSupported)? 

Thanks, 
Katy




Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU 
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 16:31:11 GMT

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