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

Re: WS-Fragment uploaded

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:00:24 -0400 (EDT)
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0909250343150.14401@wnl.j3.bet>
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Doug Davis wrote:

> was going to save this for the f2f but.....
> T.Create() and T.Delete() are used to create/delete entire resources -
> using it to do something else (like _not_ creating/deleting a resource)
> would violate the extensibility rules of Transfer where it talks about
You can apply the same logic for T.Put() then. If you think that fragment 
is a way to identify sub-resources within a more global resource, then 
both T.Put()/Create()/Delete() will apply.
I don't think that adding two ways of doing what seems to be the same 
thing is helping simplicity and understanding.

> extensions spec not contradicting the base spec.  The way to think about
> ws-frag is that it defines the "instructions" for how to get the Put done.
> Put is still updating the resource, its just instead of doing a blind XML
> copy-n-replace, we're passing in an instruction for how to do the update
> but the semantics/purpose of the operation is still the same.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
> Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
> 09/24/2009 12:50 PM
>
> To
> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
> public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
> Subject
> Re: WS-Fragment uploaded
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Doug Davis wrote:
>
>> All,
>>  Ram and I have just checked in ws-frag [1] for the WG's consideration.
>> There are still a couple of minor things that need to be cleaned up -
> like
>> fixing up the xsd - there's a list of open questions at the bottom of
> the
>> doc. But we think this is a pretty good starting point.  If the WG
>> approves of this direction then we're hoping that it will remove the
> need
>> for the RT spec.
>
> I have a question about the introduction of 'mode' in fragment PUT
> mode has three different values:
> http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-fra/Modes/Replace
> http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-fra/Modes/Insert
> and
> http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-fra/Modes/Remove
>
> Put+Remove sounds awfully like a Delete, and Put+Insert looks also awfully
>
> like a Create. (and Put+Replace looks like... a Put)
> So why adding another axis of extensibility to duplicate what's already
> there?
>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wsfrag.html
>>
>> 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.
>
>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 08:00:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:13 GMT