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

Re: Enumeration state tables

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 07:54:40 -0400
To: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
Cc: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8006E116.E88DCC52-ON8525763C.00640BAD-8525763E.00417101@us.ibm.com>
Couple of comments:
1 - if we're going to do this then I'd like to suggest that we get some 
version of these into the spec sooner rather than later.  Having this in 
the spec sooner will people more time to review it - including non-WG 
members.
2 - We probably need an [End] state - in both tables
3 - on the consumer side - when we're in states like "Getting Status", 
can't we also do a Renew?  No need to serialize things, right?
4 - do we need to say what happens if a GetStatusResponse comes in but 
we're not in the "Getting Status" state?  if not, then I'm not sure we 
need the "Getting Status" state.  If fact, this state could cause 
confusion because it implies you can't do a Renew while in that state.
5 - consumer: Expiration while in the Renewing state.... this one is 
interesting.  From the consumer's point of view, if they get back a fault 
from the renew then they're not back in "Created" state, they should be in 
"End" state.
6 - on data source, the Pull request should probably have the if-stmt only 
on the sending of the EndOfSequence element since it could appear _with_ 
data too.

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.



Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
09/11/2009 07:31 PM

To
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
cc

Subject
Enumeration state tables






Attached is the first draft of the state tables for WS-Enumeration. 
Overall this was pretty straightforward. The one thing I'm not sure about 
is, when the Consumer is in the "Releasing" state (having sent a 
wsen:Release request) and it receives a fault that is not 
wsen:InvalidEnumerationContext it seems that the Consumer has no choice 
but to assume the request wasn't processed and the Enumeration is still in 
the "Created" state.

While working on these state tables it occurred to me that the issues 
around expiration representation and expiration negotiation that we are 
discussing for WS-Eventing are also issues for WS-Enumeration.

- gp[attachment "Enumeration-State-Tables-v1.doc" deleted by Doug 
Davis/Raleigh/IBM] 
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 11:55:29 GMT

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