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

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

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:18:21 -0700
Message-ID: <40EC76AD.1070200@oracle.com>
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>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? 
>

Nope, that is not the intent. Please see the last paragraph. It is not 
rpc or mandatory extension.I acknowledged that there are additional 
rules we can write down before resorting to extensibility mechanisms.  I 
did not have time to express them with appropriate speceze.

> A WSDL that has unique
>operation names, but violates some aspect of rpc style unrelated to
>operation dispatch would not be conformant.
>
Do you mean unique GEDs instead of unique operation names? The issue is 
the uniqueness of the messages.

With an additional bullet item such as

-- the messages of all interface operation components in a particular 
direction for a specific interface component must be unique, i.e. they 
must have distinct GEDs.

With appropriate rewording applied, would this be acceptable? If there 
are additional rules like this, the better.

My point is if all fails, there MUST be a mandatory extension which 
provides the functionality for the abstract feature.

Hope that is clear.

--umit

>
>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
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 18:19:04 GMT

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