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

RE: Issue 6429: proposal 2

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 11:41:20 -0400
To: "Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com>
Cc: gilbert.pilz@oracle.com, public-ws-resource-access@w3.org, "Chou, Wu (Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com>
Message-ID: <OFEE15F0FB.51260840-ON852575BA.005549B0-852575BA.00563110@us.ibm.com>
Hi Li,
  its this line:
2) the subscriber has to find port p1 to subscribe somehow...

and in particular, the "somehow" part that confuses me.  If there are 3 
different ways that events can be sent (raw, wrapped and batched), which 
of these does 'p1' represent?  All 3?  One port per mechanism?  If there 
are multiple ports how does the sink know which port goes with each 
mechanism?  Do we really expect implementations to be able to do all of 
this 'thinking' in real-time w/o any human intervention? 

These questions aren't really directed towards just you - rather at the 
group in general.

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.



"Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com> 
05/18/2009 11:05 AM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
<gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>, <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, "Chou, Wu 
(Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com>
Subject
RE: Issue 6429: proposal 2






Hi Doug,
 
For question 1, I think the reason was that wsa:Action is required only if 
wsa is used via the wsam:Addressing policy assertion. Therefore, we made 
it optional. 
 
For question 2 and 3 plus <way off topic>, I agree that a better place to 
answer them is 6401 thread which just opened up. The statement in 6429 
about sending WSDL in EPR or MEX is prior to the 6401 solution based on 
Gil?s idea. I therefore deleted those statements to make 6429 to focus on 
just defining a static WSDL interface, while leaving the interface binding 
and discovery to 6401 discussions. The new version with change marks is 
attached.
 
I think 6401 offers a better solution for these cases and here is how it 
might work:
 
1) Support event source WSDL has an event source port p1 that supports the 
wse:Subscribe, and p1 has a policy assertion (proposed by 6401), linking 
it to a binding b1 of port type ?GenericSinkPortType?, in the notification 
WSDL. 
 
2) the subscriber has to find port p1 to subscribe somehow.  From there it 
can find the binding b1 and the port type of the wrap interface.
 
3) the event sink engages the proper module that implements the wrap 
interface.
 
4) the subscriber sends a Subscribe message with the format parameter set 
to select the wrap delivery format.
 
5) the notifications are delivered accordingly.
 
Please let me know if this makes sense to you.
 
Thanks,
 
Li
 

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 8:48 AM
To: Li, Li (Li)
Cc: gilbert.pilz@oracle.com; public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; Chou, Wu 
(Wu)
Subject: Re: Issue 6429: proposal 2
 

Hi Li, 
  three questions/comments: 
1 - any reason why the actionURI on each event is optional?  Since 
wsa:Action is required (in the raw case) I would have thought that the 
"actionURI" on each event in the wrapped case would be require too.  That 
would provide a natural 1-1 mapping between wrapped and unwrapped. 
2 - this probably isn't specific to issue (I think it might be related to 
the advertising of notifications issue too), but in the Appendix you talk 
about how the source can get this WSDL from the NotifyTo EPR or by using 
MEX against the Sink.  How does the Source know which wsdl/port to look 
at?  Is the "GenericSinkPortType" name a static/well-defined name that the 
Source will know to look for?  Is this WSDL static or are runtimes 
expected to analyze it in real-time? I'm just trying to get my head around 
how all of this fits together and which pieces are supposed to be 
programmatically used by the runtime (or tooling) and which are meant to 
be for informational purposes - and in practice those things will just be 
implied or hard-coded. 
3 - related to the previous one... what if there is no NotifyTo EPR? 

<way off topic> 
Sometimes I wonder if as part of the SubscribeResponse the Source should 
include the WSDL of what the Sink is expected to support.  Between all of 
the various options (extensions) available (format, wrapped, raw, 
batching...) it seems like the actual WSDL that both sides will use won't 
be known until all options of a particular Subscribe are analyzed - and 
its only at that point that the shape (wsdl) of the messages can be 
determined.  Sure someone could write a WSDL that contains all possible 
variants but then it is really of any use?  And are we just creating a 
combinatorial explosion of WSDL's if we even try.  Of course, the other 
option is to just have "implied semantics/wsdl". 
</way off topic> 

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. 


"Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com> 
05/15/2009 03:59 PM 


To
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 
cc
"Chou, Wu (Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, 
<gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> 
Subject
Re: Issue 6429: proposal 2
 


 
 




Reload the complete proposal that fixed a small typo in the WSDL.

Gil proposed an alternative way to represent the current actionURI, but
this disagreement was resolved and Gil accepted the current proposal.
Please see the attached email for correspondent. 

Thanks,

Li Li

[attachment "wse_6429.doc" deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM] 


----- Message from "Gilbert Pilz" <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> on Thu, 14 May 
2009 16:40:44 -0400 ----- 

To:
"Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com>
cc:
"Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>, "Chou, Wu (Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com>
Subject:
Re: FW: Agenda 2009-05-12 WS-RA distributed meting
 

Yes, I can live with the current proposal.

- gp

On 5/12/2009 9:57 AM, Li, Li (Li) wrote: 
Doug, Gil:

I am assigned the following AI:
-Issue-6429 Eventing: Standardize Wrapped Event Sink
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6429 
 -Li (Action-42)

which is pending on the decision on where to put the notification action
verb. The current proposal puts it inside the SOAP body whereas Gil's
proposal puts it in the SOAP header. 

We are ok with the current proposal which was based on Doug's
suggestion. Gil, can you live with the current proposal? If not, can you
and Doug work out some compromise so we can close this AI?

Thanks,
Li

-----Original Message-----
From: member-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
[mailto:member-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bob
Freund
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:40 AM
To: member-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Agenda 2009-05-12 WS-RA distributed meting

Distributed meeting

Time: 15:30-17:00 EDT

Dial-in and IRC according to usual practice[5]

Topic: Opening
Roll
Selection of scribe, see scribe list[1]
Approval of this Agenda
Approval of minutes from the 2009-0-05 distributed meeting[2]

Note that "*" preceding an issue is chair's suggestion of priority 
discussion
"#" ought to be quickly closable (But the chair is often surprised)
Items marked "X" in the chair's opinion need seasoning

Topic: WG Administrivia
-Reminder to record your frf attendance[4] BEFORE 23:59 Boston time on 
5/26
-Introduction, new WG Member Paul Nolan

Topic: May Snapshot
-folks ready with review of incorporated issues?

Topic: Task Team Progress
-Team 6401
-Activity to consolidate Mode Proposals (Geoff, Gil, Who?) Do we have 
one list that folks think is "the list"?

Topic: Action Items where are we?
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/tracker/actions/open

Topic: New Issues
-none-

Topic: Issues with proposals
Common:
-none-

Enumeration:
#-Issue-6860 wsen:EnumerationEnd/wsen:EnumerationContext is unusable 
and unnecessary http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6860 -Pilz

Eventing:

X-Issue-6692 WS-Eventing: Remove Mode from the specification
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6692 
 -Snelling
#-Issue-6696 Eventing: When to check the EPRs
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6696 
 -Davis
*-Issue-6724 Eventing: define resource representation
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6724 
 -Davis
#-Issue-6850 Eventing: remove unneeded text in conformance section
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6850 
 -Davis

Transfer:
#-Issue-6594 Transfer: Add extensibility points for WS-Transfer 
wrappers http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6594 -Davis - 
Bullen (Action-57)
#-Issue-6672 Transfer: Non deterministic behavior of PutResponse
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6672 
 -Davis -Bullen (Action-57)
#-Issue-6673 Transfer: Non deterministic behavior of Create
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6673 
 -Davis -Bullen (Action-57)

*-Issue-6712 Transfer: Create is ambiguous
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6712 
 -Davis (Action-59)
#-Issue-6849 Transfer: remove WSA comment in conformance section
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6849 
 -Davis

Resource-Transfer:
-Issue-6699 RT: ability to assign metadata during create
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6699 
 -Davis

MEX:
-Issue-6500 MEX: Wrappers around GetMetadata
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6500 
 -Bullen (6398)

===

Topic: Issues for general discussion
All:
#*-Issue-6694 All: Which specifications have implicit operations?
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6694 
 -Davis

Resource-Transfer:
-Issue-6422 RT - Introduces An Ad Hoc Boxcarring Mechanism
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6422 
 -Bullen
-Issue-6575 RT - Fragment Put should allow computed values
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6575 
 -Bullen
-Issue-6634 RT - Document algorithm for modify
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6634 
 -Bullen
-Issue-6635 RT - Outer resource with individually addressable inner 
resources http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6635 -Bullen
-Issue-6636 RT - Add example of resource after the create
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6636 
 -Bullen

Eventing:
-Issue-6435 WS-Eventing needs state table to fully describe protocol
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6435 
 -Pilz
-Issue-6642 WS-Eventing does not describe how to advertise policy for 
Subscription Managerhttp://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6642 
-Pilz

MEX:
-Issue-6406 WS-MEX - define policy
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6406 
 -Davis
-Issue-6463 MEX-Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6463 
 -Warr
#*-Issue-6674 MEX should reference latest W3C REC versions of WS- 
Policy and WS-PolilcyAttachment
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6674 
 -Pilz
-Issue-6679 MEX's stance towards metadata scope and semantics needs 
clarification http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6679 -Pilz
-Issue-6680 MEX Section 3.2 has inconsistent properties
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6680 
 -Pilz

Enumeration:
-Issue-6436 WS-Enumeration needs state table to fully describe 
protocol http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6436 -Pilz

AOB
Adjourn

===
N.B.
Issues needing owners
-Issue-6701 Enumeration: Create Infoset description
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6701
-Issue-6702 MEX: Create Infoset description
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6702
-Issue-6703 RT: Create Infoset description
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6703
-Issue-6704 Transfer: Create Infoset description
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6704

Needing Proposals prior to Discussion:
Transfer:
X-Issue-6413 Transfer- Move Fragment support from RT to Transfer
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6413 
 -Davis -Warr
-Issue-6533 Transfer: Safeness of operations
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6533 
 -Lafon (Action-45)
-Issue-6551 RT - Message processing time exceeded
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6551 
 -Bullen (Action-13)
-Issue-6632 RT - Define fault for cases where the GetResult is too 
large http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6632 -Bullen 
(Action-32)
-Issue-6633 RT - Namespaces in updates
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6633 
 -Bullen (Action-32)
-Issue-6691 WS-T/RT - Reconcile faults
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6691 
 -Warr (Action-51)

Enumeration
-Issue-6403 Enumeration - define policy
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6403 
 -Davis (Action-60) -Bullen

Resource-Transfer:
-Issue-6407 WS-RT - define policy
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6407 
 -Davis (Action-25)
-Issue-6549 RT - Create focused on resource fragments
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6549 
 -Bullen
-Issue-6550 RT - Support for XSLT and XQuery in PUT
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6550 
 -Bullen (Action-11)
-Issue-6552 RT - Lifecycle metadata for Create
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6552 
 -Bullen (Action-12)
-Issue-6576 RT - No Fault Defined for Mi6432smatch between 
ResourceTransfer header and message body
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6576 
 -Bullen (Action-28)
-Issue-6578 RT - SideEffects applies to other faults
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6578 
 -Bullen (Action-29)
-Issue-6579 RT - Bad fragment values with Create
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6579 
 -Bullen (Action-30)
-Issue-6603 RT - Inconsistencies in CreateResponse message
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6603 
 -Bullen (Action-20)

Eventing:
-Issue-6401 WS-Eventing Notifications violates WS-I BP
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6401 
 -Davis (Action-61) (Task Team Li Pilz)
-Issue-6402 WS-Eventing - define policy
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6402 
 -Davis (Action-24)
-Issue-6421 Eventing-Extension point in reply message of Unsubscribe
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6421 
 -Bullen (Action-27)
-Issue-6429 Eventing: Standardize Wrapped Event Sink
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6429 
 -Li (Action-42)
-Issue-6700 Eventing: Complete Infoset description
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6700 
 -Wu

MEX:
-Issue-6411 WS-MEX: no way to create metadata
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6411 
 -Davis (Action-26)

===

Blocked with dependancy on (issue):

Eventing:
X-Issue-6430 Eventing-Remove Attribute wse:EventSource
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6430 
 -Li (6401)
X-Issue-6661 WS-Eventing Appendix I is incomplete and incorrect
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6661 
 -Pilz (6401)
X-Issue-6432 WS-Eventing Push delivery mode does not work when the 
subscriber is not
addressablehttp://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6432 
 -Pilz -Davis (6692)
X-Issue-6803 RT: Is this functionality required?
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6803 
 -Bullen (6413)

===

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/chair-tools/scribelist.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/9/05/2009-05-05.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/wiki/Main_Page
[4] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/43088/200906F2FReg/
[5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/admin.html
 [attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM] [attachment 
"wse_6429.doc" deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM] 
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 15:43:42 GMT

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