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

RE: Issue 6413 - just thinking

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 20:54:02 -0400
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF088FE1D4.9C841436-ON852575AF.0004BB38-852575AF.0004F4B8@us.ibm.com>
I would suggest that you ask the WSMan devs in MSFT why they feel the need 
for fragment support if you really don't understand why its needed. 
Perhaps you can convince them to trash it and offer up a generateEPR() 
type of operation instead.

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.



Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
05/06/2009 08:47 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" 
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: Issue 6413 - just thinking






Doug,
 
> The question is, how do you get more granularity if the service won't 
give you an EPR to something lower down?
 
That is a fair question.  But an equally fair question is, why would the 
service choose to provide a complete fragment access implementation to get 
at ?lower down? sub-resources rather than provide an EPR to something 
lower down?  What is the use case that suggests its easier/safer/better/? 
to provide ?lower down? access via fragment access, rather than to provide 
it via EPRs?
 
--Geoff
 
 
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
[mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:56 PM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue 6413 - just thinking
 

Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com> wrote on 05/06/2009 05:35:24 PM:
> Fragment access provides a generic framework for accessing fragments
> of a resource, but the client still has to have intimate knowledge 
> of the way in which fragments are supported within the particular 
> resource it is talking to.  How does the client gain such knowledge?
> There is no method called generateFragments that will return 
> fragment definitions, so that the client can use XPath to access them. 
>   
> If it is OK for the client to know the details of how to setup an 
> appropriate XPath query, why is it not OK for the client to know how
> to generate, say, a URI that represents the fragment (e.g. http:
> /?/myresource?section=a&subsection=b) 

You need to talk with your WSA team.  EPRs are owned by the minter, 
in this case the service. 

> As a side note, how did the client get the top level EPR in the 
> first place?  Could you not get the fragment EPRs the same way?   

Sure and that's ok - as long as the EPR is opaque to the client.  As I 
said, 
this can be done today no change is needed. 

> What is actually the difference between a ?resource? EPR and a 
?fragment? EPR? 

Nothing and that's actually my point.  Once the client has an EPR to a 
resource, 
its just a resource.  The question is, how do you get more granularity if 
the 
service won't give you an EPR to something lower down?  ta da... fragments 
 ;-) 

-Doug
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2009 00:54:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:17:59 GMT