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

RE: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:50:56 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA2042B5425@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Also, how does this address Paul's concern at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0043.html?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:06 AM
> To: Umit Yalcinalp; WS Description List
> Subject: RE: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114
> 
> 
> Umit,
> 
> As I understand your proposal, it requires either the rpc style to be
> engaged, or a mandatory extension to be present.  That is, plain
> unextended WSDL (as WS-I might profile for instance) must always
follow
> the rpc style.  Doesn't that seem a bit drastic?  A WSDL that has
unique
> operation names, but violates some aspect of rpc style unrelated to
> operation dispatch would not be conformant.
> 
> 
> Your complete proposal follows (for those who find the attachment
> inconvenient):
> 
> 
> OperationName Feature:
> 
> This specification defines an OperationName as an abstract Feature
> that is required for all WSDL documents.  OperationName Feature is
> identified with the URI value:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/features/operationName.
> 
> This Feature is assumed to be always present in the component model
> and applicable for an interface operation component (See Section
> 2.7.1.1 Composition Model). Therefore, it is not required to be
> declared in a WSDL document, but MUST always be supported.
> 
> [Note: For sake of completeness, I propose that we identify
> this feature with a URI although it will not exhibit itself in a WSDL
> document]
> 
> The OperationName Feature requires the operation name to be
> identifiable in a message exchange and thus be conveyed between the
> requestor agent and the provider agent. Since there may be multiple
> mechanisms that may implement this abstract Feature, such as other
> features, binding mechanisms (i.e.  a SOAP module) or existing
> extensibility mechanisms this specification does not mandate a
> specific implementation. However, one the following conditions must be
> met to satisfy the OperationName feature:
> 
> (1) an interface operation component must have a {style} property that
> has the URI value http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl/style/rpc.
> 
> (2) WSDL document MUST contain a mandatory extension (see Section 8.3
> Processor Conformance for the definition of a mandatory extension)
> that satisfy and implement the OperationName feature. The mandatory
> extension MUST be in use in a scope that contains interface operation
> component (see Section 2.7.1.1 Composition Model)
> 
> [Note: I believe that it is also possible to restrict the previous
> definition to binding and binding operation scopes only. I can go
> either way]
> 
> This feature also defines an abstract property that holds the URI of
> the name of the operation. The URI of the property is
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/features/operationName/Name.
> 
> Since there are different ways to implement the abstract OperationName
> feature as stated above, this specification requires a unique means of
> identifying the operation name via the Property value. The value MUST
> be the fragment identifier that signifies the specific operation
> engaged and MUST be made available in an interaction. (See Section C.2
> Fragment Identifiers)
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Umit Yalcinalp
> > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 7:14 PM
> > To: WS Description List
> > Subject: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Below please find my action item completed. (I did not want to
receive
> > friendly reminders from Jonathan every day during 4th of July ;-)).
> >
> > Here is my position on the thread started with David [1]. The
> questions
> > I was trying to answer and my position wrt those are:
> >
> > (1) should WSDL require identifying the operation name? (yes)
> > (2) should WSDL enable identifying the specific mechanism that makes
> the
> > operation name known? (yes)
> > (3) should WSDL provide a way to operation name regardless of the
> > mechanism employed? (yes)
> > (4) should WSDL define the mechanism of implementation? (no)
> >
> > This proposal addresses 1, 2 and 3 as an addition to Part 1. My
> earlier
> > proposals addressed all
> > of the above (see [2] and [3]) in the past and there are similar
> > elements in my current proposal, but given that there are different
> ways
> > to do (4) and we will never agree on it, at least I am hoping that
we
> > agree that we should at least be able to agree to identify them in a
> > WSDL document.
> > In essence, the proposal below is in the spirit of Hugo's email [4],
> but
> > also requires that all extensibility mechanisms to be declared in
> WSDL.
> >
> > If there are "friendly"  amendements or spec-eze improvements,
please
> > send them. I realize that there may be additional rules one may be
> able
> > to formulate for satisfying the OperationName feature other than
those
> > stated, but this will not break the intention of the proposal,
namely
> > WSDL is the contract and all dependencies must be declared.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0300.html
> > [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0082.html
> > [3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0152.html
> > [4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0004.html
> >
> >
> > --
> > Umit Yalcinalp
> > Consulting Member of Technical Staff
> > ORACLE
> > Phone: +1 650 607 6154
> > Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
> >
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 12:51:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT