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

Re: WS-Fragment uploaded

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:43:42 -0400 (EDT)
To: David Snelling <David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com>
cc: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0909290836430.3848@wnl.j3.bet>
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, David Snelling wrote:

>
> Yves,
>
> You are right at the semantic level - either we tweak the meaning of 
> the T.Put operation (as proposed in WS-Frag) or the we tweak the 
> meaning of the whole WS-T spec. WS-Frag is intended to address a 
> number of important (but not central) use cases. Therefore, I agree 
> with the current approach that aims to clarify things for the 
> implementers extending T with Frag and to avoid confusing those that 
> only want to implement T but who are aware of Frag.

Well, the edcopy or T currently have examples using Frag, so the cat is 
already out of the box there. If there was nothing about Frag in T, and 
somebody is using a T.Put/Delete/Create/Get on a Fragment and Frag is not 
supported on the other end, then you need to have a good story (especially 
for unsafe methods).
Adding an axis in FragPut to do FragCreate and FragDelete doesn't seem to 
be a good story to tell if you want to keep things simple and 
understandable by mere mortals.

>
> On 25 Sep 2009, at 09:00, Yves Lafon wrote:
>
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>
> Take care:
>
>   Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com >
>   Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Limited
>   Hayes Park Central
>   Hayes End Road
>   Hayes, Middlesex  UB4 8FE
>   Reg. No. 4153469
>
>   +44-7590-293439 (Mobile)
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
>
> Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Limited
> Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE
> Registered No. 4153469
>
>
> This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of addressee(s) and
> may contain information which is privileged and confidential. Unauthorised
> use or copying for disclosure is strictly prohibited. The fact that this
> e-mail has been scanned by Trendmicro Interscan and McAfee Groupshield does
> not guarantee that it has not been intercepted or amended nor that it is
> virus-free.
>

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

         ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 12:44:01 GMT

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