W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > December 2004

RE: New text for SOAP Modules/Features

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 15:41:03 -0500
Message-ID: <5B10E50E14A4594EB1B5566B69AD9407068E68FE@maileast>
To: 'Glen Daniels' <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>

+1 to editorial changes. But, this doesn't satisfy LC18. Why?

First, LC18 is not about syntactic relationship. But, "... do not see any
concrete text that establishes any relationship between Features and SOAP
Modules" [1].

Glen, I agree with your October suggestion:

"Asir: Although we had originally rolled 18 in with 29b,
 I just reread the text you point to, and I do think we
 could profitably add some text which describes the fact
 that Features in fact are typically resolved/implemented
 by bindings or Modules, and that Modules can satisfy 
 abstract Feature requirements.  I think this might help 
 with Marc's concern as well, without going so far as to
 generate a syntactic connection between the two.  I'll
 volunteer to write this (i.e. switch my ACTION from
 writing this email to writing some resolution text
 :))." 
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Oct/0058.html

Let me add qualifiers to the suggested text below - "This is because the
final arbiter of which
WSDL features a given SOAP module implements is the module specification
itself".

That is, the SOAP module specification declares which WSDL features this
module implements. To automate/enforce this relationship, LC18 calls for
some text in Part 3 stating that SOAP module specifications MUST/SHOULD/MAY
specify WSDL features that a module implements. Also, if the property "WSDL
Feature URI" is actually the same as the property "SOAP Feature URI", in the
SOAP Binding Context, we should state that. Are they the same?

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC18

Regards,
Asir S Vedamuthu
asirv at webmethods dot com
http://www.webmethods.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Glen Daniels
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 11:36 AM
To: WS Description List
Cc: Asir Vedamuthu
Subject: New text for SOAP Modules/Features




Hey folks:

I was writing up some text which we might consider putting in the spec
to account for issues LC29b [1] and LC18 [2] (I still don't think this
is really necessary but wanted to see what it might look like anyway),
and I noted the first sentence from section 2.6.1 of Part 3 seems a
little confusing:

<text>
In SOAP, it is permissible for specification interaction to engage one
or more additional features (typically implemented as one or more SOAP
header blocks), as defined by SOAP Modules (see [SOAP 1.2 Part 1:
Messaging Framework]). 
</text>

I'd suggest replacing it with:

<text>
In SOAP, additional semantics such as security, reliability, etc. may be
engaged via SOAP headers.  The combined rules and syntax for such
extensions are known as SOAP Modules (see [SOAP 1.2 Part 1: Messaging
Framework]).
</text>

and then here's some text we might add immediately thereafter:

Note : although SOAP Modules may implement zero or more Features, there
is no syntactic relationship between the <soap:module> and
<wsdl:feature> elements.  This is because the final arbiter of which
features a given module implements is the module specification itself -
any system supporting the module will inherently therefore know which
features are supported by virtue of the module's activation.

Asir, others, what do you think?

--Glen

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC29b
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC18
Received on Monday, 6 December 2004 20:42:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT