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

Re: Describing which blobs are to be optimized.

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:03:06 -0400
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-id: <31DDB2DA-B662-11D8-BAFC-000A95BC8D92@Sun.COM>

On a related note I'm unclear on the semantics implied by marking the 
MTOM/XOP feature as optional. I can see several interpretations:

(i) a service will never use it but a client may
(ii) a service will not use it unless client does first
(iii) a service will always use it but a client isn't obliged to


On Jun 4, 2004, at 2:27 PM, Jonathan Marsh wrote:

> The WS Description WG is working through an issue (#207 [1]), which is
> XOP-related.  As we communicated to you earlier [2], the ability of a
> service to accept and transmit XOP can be indicated by indicating the
> HTTP Transmission Optimization Feature is in use through the WSDL
> feature syntax.  This syntax also allows the MTOM feature to be
> "required", which we interpret as, the service must be sent a XOP
> envelope and media type, though XOP itself doesn't constrain which 
> parts
> of the XML within that envelope have been optimized (it could be none).
> A question arises ([3] continuing on [4]) that if XOP is required,
> whether it further makes sense to say precisely which parts of the
> message are to be optimized.  As we understand it, this allows a 
> service
> to place additional restrictions on the use of XOP beyond what the XOP
> spec describes, but not leaving it completely up to the application
> layer.  These additional restrictions could be along the lines of
> "anything marked with an expectedMediaType attribute must be 
> optimized",
> to a fine level of granularity through an xop:optimize="true" attribute
> on the schema.
> The working group has a preference (straw poll 7 to 4 [5]) to indicate
> in some fashion which parts must be optimized.  However, since you own
> the HTTP Transmission Optimization Feature, we wanted to ask you two
> questions:
> 1) Do you feel that such descriptive hints would be useful or is it
> contrary to the expected usage patterns of XOP?
> 2) If it is useful, would you be willing to describe these hints,
> including introducing syntax, in the MTOM or XOP specs?  (Splitting a
> feature and it's descriptive hints across multiple specs seems
> suboptimal to us.)
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x207
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0077.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0089.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0000.html
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0019.html
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Products, Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 4 June 2004 15:59:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:48 UTC