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

RE: 2004-02-12 Action Item: Clarification to the OperationName feature

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:44:58 -0800
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA202B06B04@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Below:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 10:24 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: 2004-02-12 Action Item: Clarification to the
OperationName
> feature
> 
> Hi folks:
> 
> (sorry about replying up here instead of inline, but I can't seem to
get
> Outlook Express to prefix quoted text with ">" in some cases (when
Outlook
> was used to send the original message, it seems) even though I have
all
> the
> right switches set - grrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!  If you have a clue how to do
this,
> let me know!)

[This is probably not an optimal solution, but you can open the message,
select Edit/Edit Message then Format/Plain Text.  Then Reply All and
you'll get a plain text message with the line prefix.  (Sad in this day
and age that plain text is still the lowest common demoninator...)]

> Having the operation name available somehow, no matter how, on the
> receiving
> end is precisely what we are trying to define with this feature.  It
does
> not need to be in the message content per se, and might also be
available
> via the URL, the action parameter, etc.  The only trick is that
something
> has to know how it is being done, and that must be somehow expressed
in
> the
> WSDL.

I don't see a lot of difference in practice between "not expressed in
the WSDL" and "expressed through an extension unknown to the processor."
I don't see how you can meaningfully constrain the presence of the
feature without also prescribing the sets of mechanisms for implementing
it.  Otherwise there are loopholes you can drive a medium-sized asteroid
through, which is where my examples are leading.

> Making it a required feature, modulo precise wording tweaks, should
have
> the
> same effect as if a <feature
> uri="http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/features/operationName"
required="true"/>
> were always present in the WSDL.  Umit suggests this should be in the
> <binding>, but I think it makes more sense to think of it in the
> <interface>.  Really doesn't matter though as long as it's always
assumed
> to
> be there.
> 
> I don't think that you can "widen" a required feature to optional, so
> having
> the required="false" as you suggest below wouldn't have any effect.

Does the spec say that somewhere?

> If you specify your "stick-operation-name-in-a-header" module without
> noting
> that it implements the operationName feature, then you haven't
satisfied
> the
> operationName feature.

So, my WSDL is non-conformant because the spec writer didn't write his
spec according to your guidelines?  Even in this case where the messages
conform to the spirit of the feature?

> I'm not sure what the "obvious semantics" are in your "override"
example,
> actually. :)  Could you expand on that a little?

A better example:

 
<my:put-no-operation-name-in-the-message-even-though-the-OperationName-f
eature-says-you-have-to wsdl:required="true"/>

This feature conflicts with the OperationName feature, and its spec
probably says that it takes precedence over the OperationName feature.
Is that an allowable composition with a "built-in" feature?  These are
the kinds of questions we have to answer if we introduce built-in
features as a new concept.

> --Glen
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
> To: "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>; "WS Description
List"
> <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2    004 7:42 PM
> Subject: RE: 2004-02-12 Action Item: Clarification to the
OperationName
> feature
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure whether having the Operation Name in the message is
always
> necessary, but putting that aside - what are the implications of a
> "required
> feature"?  Is the WSDL somehow invalid if it specifies:
> 
>   <feature uri="http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/features/operationName"
> required="false"/>
> 
> ?
> 
> Suppose my binding for an operation named for instance "Fred" has an
> extension
> 
>   <my:stick-operation-name-in-a-header wsdl:required="true"/>
> 
> with the obvious semantics, but whose specification doesn't tie this
> behavior in with the OpName feature URI.  How will you know whether
the
> feature as been implemented?
> 
> What if I introduce an extension
> 
>   <my:override-operation-name-feature wsdl:required="true"/>
> 
> With the obvious semantics.  Is this type of extension disallowed?
> 
> "Required feature" is a new idea and I'd like to see more details of
what
> you expect to happen.
> 
> 
> ___________________________________
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Umit Yalcinalp
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:28 PM
> To: WS Description List
> Subject: 2004-02-12 Action Item: Clarification to the OperationName
> feature
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I was given an action item [1] to clarify the usage of OperationName
> feature
> [2], to clarify what is required and what must be specified in WSDL.
> 
> Addendum to the Proposal:
> 
> OperationName feature is a required feature for all WSDL descriptions.
It
> is
> not specific to a binding since all bindings must implement this
feature.
> Therefore, the feature is not required to be declared as shown below
as it
> is assumed to be present in all descriptions:
> 
> <binding>
> ...
> <feature uri="http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/features/operationName"
> required="true"/>
> </binding>
> 
> Note: This syntax may change per compositor syntax proposal [3].
> 
> There may be multiple ways to implement this feature. The proposal
> specifies
> a distinct method for implementing this feature by using a soap module
for
> SOAP bindings. When the soap module specified by [2] is used as the
> implementation method, its use must be declared in WSDL as follows:
> 
> <binding>
> ...
> <wsoap:module
uri="http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/OperationDispatchModule"
> required="true"/>
> </binding>
> 
> Note: The original proposal did not specify a URI for the SOAP module
that
> has been specified here.
> 
> The SOAP Action feature may also be engaged in the binding in addition
to
> the OperationName feature as shown below:
> 
> <binding>
> ...
> <feature uri="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/features/action/"/>
> </binding>
> 
> In this case, the OperationName feature also specifies the value of
the
> SOAP
> Action property as discussed in [2].
> 
> --umit
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0076.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0082.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0153.html
> 
> --
> Umit Yalcinalp
> Consulting Member of Technical Staff
> ORACLE
> Phone: +1 650 607 6154
> Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
> 
Received on Monday, 23 February 2004 12:45:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:02 UTC