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

issue 6398: updated proposal

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:36:15 -0500
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6D57FCB2.692E139F-ON8525753F.004E7588-8525753F.00503BD6@us.ibm.com>
per my AI from yesterday, the updated pseudo schema for the wrapped 
WS-Transfer operations would be:

GetRequest:
<wst:Get ... >
  xs:any ?
</wst:Get>

GetResponse:
<wst:GetResponse ...>
  xs:any
</wst:GetResponse>

PutRequest:
<wst:PutRequest ...>
  xs:any
</wst:PutRequest>

PutResponse:
<wst:PutResponse ...>
  xs:any ?
</wst:PutResponse>

DeleteResponse:
<wst:DeleteResponse ...>
  xs:any ?
</wst:DeleteResponse>

CreateRequest:
<wst:CreateRequest ...>
  xs:any
</wst:CreateRequest>

CreateResponse:
<wst:CreateResponse ...>
  <wxf:ResourceCreated>endpoint-reference</wxf:ResourceCreated>
  xs:any ? 
</wst:CreateResponse>

In looking at how this impacts RT... it shouldn't. RT overrides T's Body 
(in some cases already using a wrapper similar to the above) so that can 
continue as is. The only thing missing from the previous proposal was the 
extensibilty points on the wrapper elements so that attributes could be 
added - but that was a typo :-) .  Existing RT can continue to override 
the the above messages with a well defined element - this, along with the 
RT header allows the receiver to know this isn't a normal/vanilla Transfer 
operation.

There is no impact on MEX.  I couldn't find any reference to the transfer 
operations that needed to be changed - no samples using it either.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM  |  Web Services Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM T/L 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2009 14:37:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:17:41 GMT