W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2005

Re: What is the purpose of #none?

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@opensource.lk>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 21:13:17 +0600
To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-Id: <1115910797.8166.47.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Hi Arthur,

#none means there's *no input*, period. Its not that there are no
arguments .. there will be no body at all.

The usecase is some operation where just by connecting to the EPR its
clear what must be sent back.

Sanjiva.

On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 08:20 -0400, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> 
> Umit, 
> 
> I guess I didn't provide the motivation. 
> 
> Suppose you have an operation that takes no input arguments. It is
> still a request-response, but the request is empty, e.g. get the
> current time of day. 
> 
> Arthur Ryman,
> Rational Desktop Tools Development
> 
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
> intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/ 
> 
> 
> Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA 
> Sent by:
> www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> 
> 05/11/2005 05:36 PM 
> 
> 
>                To
> "Yalcinalp, Umit"
> <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> 
>                cc
> www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
>           Subject
> Re: What is the
> purpose of #none?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umit, 
> 
> #none means the message is empty. 
> 
> Arthur Ryman,
> Rational Desktop Tools Development
> 
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
> intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/ 
> 
> "Yalcinalp, Umit"
> <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> 
> Sent by:
> www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> 
> 05/10/2005 09:45 PM 
> 
> 
> 
>                To
> <www-ws-desc@w3.org> 
>                cc
> 
>           Subject
> What is the
> purpose of #none?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I was reading the primer on service references, I came across an
> interesting example in our primer. Apart from the fact that primer
> talks about both Service and Endpoint references in Section 7.9 and
> the reader is baffled about the differences here (endpoint references
> are not introduced anywhere before) which is not the purpose of this
> email,  example 7.14 is particularly interesting:  
> 
> <interface name="reservationDetailsInterface"> 
>   <operation name="retrieve"
> pattern="http://www.w3.org/2005/05/wsdl/in-out">
>        <input messageLabel="In" element="#none" /> 
>        <output messageLabel="Out"
> element="wdetails:reservationDetails" /> 
>  </operation> 
> … 
> Check out the binding: 
> <binding name="reservationDetailsSOAPBinding" 
>             interface="tns:reservationDetailsInterface"    
>             type="http://www.w3.org/2005/05/wsdl/soap"
>  wsoap:protocol="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP"> 
> 
>             <operation ref="tns:retrieve"
> wsoap:mep="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/request-response" /> 
>          <operation ref="tns:update"
> wsoap:mep="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/request-response" /> 
> </binding>  
> 
> The intent here appears to be that a "retrieve" action will cause
> reservation details to be sent to the caller when an empty message is
> received. According to our spec, this is perfectly legitimate, because
> we allow empty messages, hence empty SOAP bodies to act as a trigger
> for the response message. This pattern here seems like a poor man's
> SOAP response MEP,  which is modeled on top of SOAP request-response
> MEP by passing the request message using WSDL request-response MEP.
> Aren't we confused yet ? ;-)  
> 
> I am wondering why we wanted to allow #none. It seems the whole
> purpose is to paypass a designed MEP to masquarade as another. Can
> someone refresh my memory why we wanted to allow element content to be
> empty again? (As a side comment, can anyone truly believe that this
> kind of a WSDL definition will be usable by a service provider without
> a mandatory SOAP Action header  if many pseudo-output MEPs  similar to
> the one quoted above were to be assigned to the same endpoint? ) 
> 
> Do we really want to promote this usecase in the Primer?  
> 
> End-Of-Rant, 
> 
> --umit 
> 
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2005 15:15:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:36 GMT