Re: [Bug 6721] New: Attaching policy to implicit operations

Our proposal for attaching policy to endpoints is to include it in the 
metadata section of the EPR.
See http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-PAEPR
All the best, Ashok


bugzilla@farnsworth.w3.org wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6721
>
>            Summary: Attaching policy to implicit operations
>            Product: WS-Resource Access
>            Version: PR
>           Platform: PC
>         OS/Version: Windows XP
>             Status: NEW
>           Severity: normal
>           Priority: P2
>          Component: All
>         AssignedTo: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org
>         ReportedBy: katy_warr@uk.ibm.com
>          QAContact: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org
>
>
> There are a number of issues already open addressing how we attach policies to
> indicate that an endpoint supports virtual (implicit) operations and the
> flavour/extent of that support.  For example,issue 6403
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6403 describes policy to indicate
> that an endpoint supports enumeration and there are similar issues open for the
> other specs (6402,6406, 6407).
>
> These issues do not discuss how policy should be attached to the virtual
> operation (i.e. one that does not appear in WSDL) itself.  They also don't
> address what policy should be applied to the virtual operations by default. 
> One option for default behaviour might be to default to the policy of the
> endpoint, but this poses problems as many policies are applied at
> operation/message level (and therefore are not available at the endpoint).
>
> There are a number of possible solutions that we might adopt to solve this
> problem.  I suggest that we choose a pattern and re-use that across all the
> specs for simplicity and consistency.
>
> For example, here's a potential pattern:
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>    ... <lots of policy for the endpoint>
>
>    <wsra policy indicating wsra spec support>
>       ...
>
>       <wsra:VirtualOperationPolicy>
>           ...
>       </wsra:VirtualOperationPolicy>              
>
>    </wsra policy indicating wsra spec support>
>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> The VirtualOperationPolicy defines the policy for the implicit operations
> relating to the wsra spec support.
>
> For example, the above pattern applied to eventing MIGHT look something like
> this:
>
> <wsev:WSEventingSupported  ...>
>   <wsp:Policy>
>     ...
>
>     <wsev:subscribeOperationPolicy>
>         ... policies such as security policy to attach to subscribe request ...
>     </wsev:subscribeOperationPolicy>
>
>   </wsp:Policy>
> </wsev:WSEventingSupported>
>
> If we agree on a pattern to try, the next step might be to take some real
> examples (e.g. security policy) in order to check that the pattern works prior
> to applying it across the specs.
>
> This issue is also related to
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6694 which asks when operations
> do/don't appear in the WSDL.  
>
> It's probably best for us to address the other policy issues and 6694 before
> this one - but this is an important issue as lack of clear specification in
> this area will prevent interoperability and make life hard for implementers.
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 18:59:20 UTC