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

FW: [Bug 6694] New: Which specifications have implicit operations?

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:22:26 -0700
To: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D46B7A44F5BD0C4A96D7D69E31C51D6B597C765D40@NA-EXMSG-C118.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Bug 6694 raises a few questions ....

Should WS-RA protocol operations appear in WSDL documents?
Should a developer implement WS-RA protocol operations?
Should a developer generate client code for WS-RA protocol operations?
Should a developer generate stubs for WS-RA protocol operations using WSDLs?
Should a developer fill in code for any generated stubs for WS-RA protocol operations using WSDLs?

These are interesting questions and are best deferred to implementers. Just like the secure, reliable and transacted Web Services protocols, it would be good to provide protocol users with WS-RA related WSDLs and policy assertions and defer any implementation related decisions to implementers.

Suggestion: close issue 6694 without any action.


Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation

-----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: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:35 PM
To: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 6694] New: Which specifications have implicit operations?


           Summary: Which specifications have implicit operations?
           Product: WS-Resource Access
           Version: FPWD
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: All
        AssignedTo: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org
        ReportedBy: dug@us.ibm.com
         QAContact: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org

Its not clear which of the WSRA specs have implicit vs explicit operations.
In other words, which operations would appear in the WSDL for a service?

IMO MEX is clearly a infrastructure spec - I don't think we expect
any client to actually write those operations or have their wsdl->code
tooling generate stubs for those.

The others are not as clear to me.  I suspect that some people might
think they're infrastructural and some might consider them to be
more like an application.

I believe the impact of this will be:
- implicit ops will _not_ appear in service's wsdl
- we'll need to figure out how to express implicit op's QoS/policy
- we'll need to figure out how to advertise which optional implicit ops are
supported (probably thru policy)

- explicit ops will appear in a service's wsdl along with user-defined ops
- no need for policy to describe which ones are optional - wsdl does this
- we'll need to figure out how to express the op's QoS/policy - probably just
attaching policy

No clear proposal right now, but it seems to me that a question to ask
is whether or not we expect end-users to actually generate and fill-in
the code for any stubs generated from explicit ops that appear in WSDL?
With this in mind I'm having a hard time seeing how any of these specs
should be explicit.  hmmm, maybe that was a proposal  :-)

note: I'm not talking about things like events - I think those will need
to generate stubs - but the Subscribe() doesn't seem like something an
end-user should be forced to code up.

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.
You are the assignee for the bug.
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 01:23:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:51 UTC