W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2003

RE: Thoughts on urlReplacement, REST, and R085

From: Mark Baker <mbaker@idokorro.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:23:24 -0500
Message-ID: <0503561D34C63045B07F04E5B3B2BFDC152344@FRED.planetfred.internal>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Right on, Arthur.
 
I just have one minor disagreement with it though, where you say that
you believe that satisfying R085 will suffice to address this
deficiency.  While I believe that satisfying R085 is necessary, I don't
believe it is sufficient, as I also believe that issue 64 must be
addressed, perhaps with a solution that I proposed in [1] and [2].  The
reason I believe this, is that the semantics of a WSDL operation (e.g.
"getPartDetail" in the example you provided) is no longer part of the
interface published by the server when GET is used (i.e. clients aren't
required to know what it means).  So just satisfying R085 would leave
WSDL in a state where sometimes operation names are part of the
interface, and sometimes not.  My proposal to expose GET, PUT, POST,
etc.. as WSDL operation names would address this.
 
Does that make sense?
 
Thanks.
 
BTW, apologies in advance for future tardy followups, as I'm only able
to get email sporadically while I endure the painful process of
switching ISPs. 8-{
 
 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0103
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0103> 
 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0111
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0111> 
 
MB

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:50 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Thoughts on urlReplacement, REST, and R085



I took an action item on 2003-02-13 to look at urlReplacement and to
determine if it was adequate for REST style Web services. My conclusion
is that urlReplacement is syntactically expressive enough to describe
the type of URIs employed, but its use raises architectural concerns.
Consider the example described in "Building Web Services the REST Way"
by  Roger L. Costello [1]. 

In this example, there is a Web application at the fictious company
"Parts Depot, Inc." that allows you to obtain a list of parts, get
detailed information about a specific part, and submit a purchase order
. 


To obtain the part list, send an HTTP GET to: 


http://www.parts-depot.com/parts 


You receive the following XML document: 


<?xml version="1.0"?> 
<p:Parts xmlns:p="http://www.parts-depot.com" 
         xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> 
      <Part id="00345"
xlink:href="http://www.parts-depot.com/parts/00345"/> 
      <Part id="00346"
xlink:href="http://www.parts-depot.com/parts/00346"/> 
      <Part id="00347"
xlink:href="http://www.parts-depot.com/parts/00347"/> 
      <Part id="00348"
xlink:href="http://www.parts-depot.com/parts/00348"/> 
</p:Parts> 

To obtain the detail on part 00345, send an HTTP GET: 


http://www.parts-depot.com/parts/00345 

You receive the following XML document: 

<?xml version="1.0"?> 
<p:Part xmlns:p="http://www.parts-depot.com"   
        xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> 
      <Part-ID>00345</Part-ID> 
      <Name>Widget-A</Name> 
      <Description>This part is used within the frap
assembly</Description> 
      <Specification
xlink:href="http://www.parts-depot.com/parts/00345/specification"/> 
      <UnitCost currency="USD">0.10</UnitCost> 
      <Quantity>10</Quantity> 
</p:Part> 

In this example we have 5 URI's: 1 for the part list and 4 for the
parts. How many Web services do we have? In [1] the view is that we have
two, one for the part list and one for all the parts. 

Consider the part detail service. If we only have the GET operation
described here, then WSDL 1.1 urlReplacement is adequate to describe the
service., e.g. 

<message name="partDetailInput"> 
        <part name="id" type="xsd:string"/> 
<message/> 

<message name=partDetailOutput"> 
        <part name="return" element="tns:PartDetail"/> 
</message> 

<portType name="partDetailInterface"> 
        <operation name="getPartDetail"> 
                <input message="tns:partDetailInput"/> 
                <output message="tns:partDetailOutput"/> 
        </operation> 
</portType> 

<binding name="partDetailHttp" type="tns:partDetailInterface"> 
        <http:binding verb="GET"/> 
        <operation name="getPartDetail"> 
                <http:operation location="(id)"/> 
                <input> 
                        <http:urlReplacement/> 
                </input> 
                <output> 
                        <mime:mimeXml part="return"/> 
                </output> 
        </operation> 
</binding> 

<service name="partDetailService"> 
        <port name="partDetailPort" binding="tns:partDetailHttp> 
                <http:address
location="http://www.part-depot.com/parts/"/> 
        </port> 
</service> 

However, this approach breaks down if we add another operation, say one
to update the part detail, using POST. Although we can't combine GET and
POST in the same binding in WSDL 1.1, this is an accepted requirement
for WSDL 1.2. Let's assume we have an updateQuantity operation which has
the following input message: 

<message name="updateQuantityInput"> 
        <part name=id" type=xsd:string"/> 
        <part name="quantity" type="xsd:int"/> 
</message> 

We have a problem now because we need to bind the id to the url using
urlReplacement and the quantity to the message body using mimeXml. But
urlReplacement and mimeXml are mutually exclusive in WSDL 1.1. We could
simply revise the binding in WSDL 1.2 to allow this, but then we run
into another conceptual problem. 

Consider the output of the part list. It contains URIs for the parts,
e.g. http://www.part-depot.com/parts/00345. This URI is something we can
send messages to and get responses back from so it is natural to regard
it as the endpoint of a Web service. But in our example we are not
treating each part as a Web service. We are treating the set of all the
parts as a single Web service, i.e. the part detail Web service. 

I suggest that it is natural to regard each part as a Web service
endpoint. The part id is then encoded in the address of the Web service
and is not treated as an input parameter to a Web service operation. We
therefore have one Web service for the part list and one Web service for
each part. Now it is of course non-sensical to have a WSDL <service>
element for each part since the set of parts is more likely to be 40,000
than 4. In practice, the part list would be dynamic with parts being
added and removed. Therefore there must be another way to publish the
URIs for the parts. The answer is in improving the description of the
part list service to include the information that identifies the URIs
are being Web service endpoints. This is requirement R085. A client of
the part detail Web service discovers the part URIs via the part list
Web service, and not via <service> elements in WSDL documents. 

In conclusion, the current urlReplacement mechanism is inadequate in
practice and is inconsistent with REST since it obscures the role of
URIs. IMHO, the correct resolution of this problem lies in satisfying
R085. 

[1] http://www.xfront.com/REST-Web-Services.html

Arthur Ryman
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 14:23:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:23 GMT