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

Re: [issue 6432] - a modest proposal

From: Chou, Wu (Wu) <wuchou@avaya.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:54:17 -0400
Message-ID: <F81BDFA28AE48D4793E253362D1F7A740112ABB0@300813ANEX2.global.avaya.com>
To: <bob@freunds.com>
Cc: <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Thanks for the email and inputs.
 
This is another angle to see the issue and worth pursuing. The feature
that might accommodate both styles of solutions, e.g. the WS-E
Mode/Delivery, and SOAP/mU headers, should be helpful.
 
- Wu Chou.
 
 
From: Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com
<mailto:bob@freunds.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bissue%206432%5D%20-%20a%20mod
est%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7-673AA4BBDF6B%40f
reunds.com%253E&References=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7-673AA4BBDF6B%40f
reunds.com%253E> > 
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 20:42:57 -0400
Cc: David Snelling <David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com
<mailto:David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bissue%206432%5D
%20-%20a%20modest%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7-67
3AA4BBDF6B%40freunds.com%253E&References=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7-67
3AA4BBDF6B%40freunds.com%253E> >, Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com
<mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bissue%206432%5D%20-%2
0a%20modest%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7-673AA4BB
DF6B%40freunds.com%253E&References=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7-673AA4BB
DF6B%40freunds.com%253E> >, Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com
<mailto:asirveda@microsoft.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bissue%206432%5D%20-%20
a%20modest%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7-673AA4BBD
F6B%40freunds.com%253E&References=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7-673AA4BBD
F6B%40freunds.com%253E> >, Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com
<mailto:dug@us.ibm.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bissue%206432%5D%20-%20a%20mode
st%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7-673AA4BBDF6B%40fr
eunds.com%253E&References=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7-673AA4BBDF6B%40fr
eunds.com%253E> >, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bissue%206432
%5D%20-%20a%20modest%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7
-673AA4BBDF6B%40freunds.com%253E&References=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7
-673AA4BBDF6B%40freunds.com%253E> " <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bissue%206432
%5D%20-%20a%20modest%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7
-673AA4BBDF6B%40freunds.com%253E&References=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7
-673AA4BBDF6B%40freunds.com%253E> > 
Message-Id: <23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7-673AA4BBDF6B@freunds.com> 
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org
<mailto:ylafon@w3.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bissue%206432%5D%20-%20a%20modes
t%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7-673AA4BBDF6B%40fre
unds.com%253E&References=%253C23BB170E-9349-4BFE-87E7-673AA4BBDF6B%40fre
unds.com%253E> > 

There seems like there is a big-systems use of notification as well as  
a small-device market for the same protocol.
The difference seems to be the extent to which negotiation protocols  
and additional features might be available.
It sounds like finding a way like this to make both ways possible  
might be what is needed.
-bob

On May 6, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Yves Lafon wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Bob Freund wrote:
>
>> Would it be too bold to suggest folks consider to move NotifyTo to  
>> be a child of Subscribe?
>> that way, then Delivery could be used (as an xs:Any) extension  
>> point, used by other specifications to mean anything they want at  
>> at cost of merely setting a SOAP mU header on delivery to get the  
>> fault behavior.  Of course, the fault would change from  
>> modeNotRecognized to SOAP mU Fault, but the other stuff would still  
>> work.
>> Is that half-way-ish approach that folks could consider?
>
> The main issue is still the addition of the mU in the default version.
> How about adding a specific mode (like 'anonymous') that would  
> trigger the use of the other approach.
> That way we would have the "historic" use of mode, and the new  
> version using the same trigger mechanism, allowing old  
> implementation to interoperate with newer ones, while keeping a way  
> to use the new version in all the cases where the old version would  
> not be optimal.
> Would that make sense for both camp ?
Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 15:55:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:00 GMT