Re: Options on "Wrap" and "Unwrap" formats for WS-Eventing

Hi,

Am 05.01.2011 00:46, schrieb Doug Davis:
> 
> Wu,
>   in looking at the WSDL for wrapped events (appendix D), I only see it
> permitting one event per msg:
> 
>   <types>
>    <xs:schema
>        targetNamespace='http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/ws-evt'>
> 
>      <xs:complexType name='EventType' mixed='true'>
>        <xs:sequence>
>          <xs:any namespace='##any' processContents='lax' minOccurs='0'
>                  maxOccurs='unbounded'/>
>        </xs:sequence>
>        <xs:attribute name='actionURI' type='xs:anyURI' use='optional' />
>        <xs:anyAttribute namespace='##other' processContents='lax' />
>      </xs:complexType>
> 
>      <xs:element name='Notify' type='tns:EventType' />
>    </xs:schema>
>  </types>
>  
>  <message name='notifyEvent'>
>    <part name='parameter' element='tns:Notify'/>
>  </message>
> 
> Am I missing something?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> *"Chou, Wu (Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com>*
> 
> 01/04/2011 05:00 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	"Gilbert Pilz" <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
> cc
> 	<david.snelling@uk.fujitsu.com>, <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>,
> <public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>, Doug
> Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com>
> Subject
> 	RE: Options on "Wrap" and "Unwrap" formats for WS-Eventing
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gil,
>  
> According to WS-Eventing Second Last Call, Appendix A.2, and Appendix D
> using Notification WSDL, point (4) is allowed. In particular, Appendix
> D, WSDL for Standard Wrapped Delivery, it states "the event sink MUST
> implement the following abstract WSDL ....", and the abstract WSDL
> defined therein permits multiple events be sent in one notification
> message.
>  
> We hope point (4) is there, as this feature can save a lot of processing
> power, and significantly reduce the number of notifications that has to
> be sent to the event sink while meeting the event delivery requirement.
>  
> - Wu Chou.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com] *
> Sent:* Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:42 AM*
> To:* Chou, Wu (Wu)*
> Cc:* david.snelling@uk.fujitsu.com; public-ws-resource-access@w3.org;
> public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org; Doug Davis; Li, Li (Li)*
> Subject:* Re: Options on "Wrap" and "Unwrap" formats for WS-Eventing
> 
> With regards to the final point (4) below; I don't think you can send
> multiple events in a single Notification message.
> 
> ~ gp
> 
> On 1/3/2011 1:25 PM, Chou, Wu (Wu) wrote:
> <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]--><!--[if
> !supportLists]--><!--[endif]--><!--[if
> !supportLists]--><!--[endif]--><!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->
> David,
>  
> Requiring event sink supports both wrap and unwrapped event delivery may
> not make sense for the following reasons:
>  
> 1. According to WS-E, it is the event subscriber/sink determines the
> event delivering format (wrapped or unwrapped) in its subscription
> message. It is not the other way around.
>  
> 2. It is better for event source to meet the needs of various types of
> potential event subscribers (one-to-many), vs. requiring every event
> sink to implement additional options (many-to-one).
>  
> 3. Event sinks typically have much less resources than event source, and
> moreover, their options are limited by various application environments,
> e.g. mobile, etc.
>  
>  
> Some of the reasons/benefits of using wrapped event sink are:
>  
> 1. One interface for all types of events
>  
> 2. Loosely coupled programming model
>  
> 3. Good for event proxy applications, where it needs to handle all types
> of events, including some new types of events that may add/occur in the
> future.
>  
> 4. Save power, using wrapped event sink - multiple events can be
> delivered in one notification message, whereas using unwrapped event
> sink - every single event requires one dedicated notification message
> (critical for mobile and resource constrained devices).
>  
> Regards,
>  
> - Wu Chou.
>  
> Avaya Labs Research
> 

was there any consensus about that issue?


Another point: is it true that future WS-Eventing conform middlewares
have to implement both wrapped and unwrapped?

According to the second last call draft, section 4.1, it sounds like
event sources can refuse delivery formats they don't understand:

"If the event source does not support the requested delivery format, the
request MUST generate a wse:DeliveryFormatRequestedUnavailable fault
indicating that the requested delivery format is not supported."

Or does it imply wrapped and unwrapped as a minimum requirement, and
some magic other formats might be declined?

Best, David

Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 13:22:44 UTC