W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2006

Re: Clarification needed on HTTP Transfer Coding

From: John Kaputin (gmail) <jakaputin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 01:22:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4c2ae8f80606081722yd019ecbl6b4f2bb2536943a@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org, "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, "John Kaputin" <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>, woden-dev@ws.apache.org
Jacek,
I'd still like to confirm my understanding of Part 2 section 6.8.2.

It's clear that BindingMessageReference {http transfer coding} defaults to
BindingOperation {http transfer coding default} as stated.

But does BindingFault {http transfer coding} also default to
BindingOperation {http transfer coding default} as stated in this section
and if so, to which operation?  I am wondering if BindingFault should
default to Binding {http transfer coding default} instead.

Is there any intended relationship between Binding {http transfer coding
default} and BindingOperation {http transfer coding default}?

thanks,
John Kaputin.


On 6/8/06, Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> wrote:
>
> Arthur, we discussed the issue on the call today and it seems that the
> spec is not wrong on this particular point:
>
> Among our components, it is message references and faults that specify
> concrete data, and fault references only point to faults. Therefore
> {http transfer coding} makes sense on BindingMessageReference and
> BindingFault components, not on BindingFaultReference components.
>
> Moving {http transfer coding} from binding fault to binding fault
> reference would be adding a feature - the ability to specify different
> transfer coding for one fault if used from different operations. I don't
> think we need this. 8-)
>
> I agree that the naming can be confusing. The problem is that
> InterfaceMessageReference actually does refer to a message from the
> applicable MEP and adds the data specification, and
> InterfaceFaultReference refers to the fault from the MEP and instead of
> adding the data specification directly, it points to an InterfaceFault
> component that does that. We introduced this particular thing to allow
> operations to share faults, fwiw.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jacek
>
> On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 21:36 -0400, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Yes, I think the spec is wrong. The transfer coding applies to
> > concrete messages so it should be a property of Binding Message
> > Reference and Binding Fault Reference which correspond to the <input>,
> > <output>, <infault>, and <outfault> elements. The defaults should be
> > properties of the higher level components Binding, Binding Fault, and
> > Binding Operation.
> >
> > Arthur Ryman,
> > IBM Software Group, Rational Division
> >
> > blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
> > 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
> >
> >
> > "John Kaputin (gmail)"
> > <jakaputin@gmail.com>
> > Sent by:
> > www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> >
> > 05/30/2006 05:47 AM
> >
> >
> >                To
> > Arthur
> > Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> >                cc
> > "John Kaputin"
> > <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>, woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org,
> www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> >           Subject
> > Re: Clarification
> > needed on HTTP
> > Transfer Coding
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Arthur,
> > you wrote:
> >
> > 3.2 For Binding Fault Reference, the value  is equal to the
> > whttp:transferCoding attribute if present,
> >        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the
> > associated Binding Fault component if present
> >        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the parent
> > Binding Operation, if present
> >        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the
> > grandparent Binding, if present
> >        else the property if absent
> >
> > In the current editor's copy {http transfer coding} is not an
> > extension property of the BindingFaultReference component and the
> > whttp:transferCoding attribute is not defined for the wsdl:infault and
> > wsdl:outfault elements of the wsdl:binding. I assume you are proposing
> > that {http transfer coding} should be defined for
> > BindingFaultReference (i.e. given that {http transfer coding default}
> > is defined for BindingFault). Correct?
> >
> > regards,
> > John Kaputin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/29/06, Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I'm not an author of that part of the spec, but I agree with you that
> > it looks wrong. Here is my attempt at a sensible interpretation:
> >
> > 1. The {http transfer coding default} property should be an OPTIONAL
> > property of the Binding, Binding Fault, and Binding Operation
> > components. If present, this value provides a default for the {http
> > transfer coding} of related Binding Message Reference and Binding
> > Fault Reference components as described below.
> >
> > 2. The {http transfer coding} property should be an OPTIONAL property
> > of Binding Message Reference and Binding Fault Reference. If absent,
> > then no transfer coding is used for the associated message (normal or
> > fault).
> >
> > 3. The value of {http transfer coding} is determined as follows:
> >
> > 3.1 For Binding Message Reference, the value is equal to the
> > whttp:transferCoding attribute if present,
> >        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the parent
> > Binding Operation, if present
> >        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the
> > grandparent Binding, if present
> >        else the property if absent
> >
> > 3.2 For Binding Fault Reference, the value  is equal to the
> > whttp:transferCoding attribute if present,
> >        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the
> > associated Binding Fault component if present
> >        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the parent
> > Binding Operation, if present
> >        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the
> > grandparent Binding, if present
> >        else the property if absent
> >
> > Arthur Ryman,
> > IBM Software Group, Rational Division
> >
> > blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
> > 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
> >
> > "John Kaputin (gmail)"
> > <jakaputin@gmail.com>
> > Sent by:
> > www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> >
> > 05/26/2006 08:12 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >                To
> > www-ws-desc@w3.org
> >                cc
> > woden-dev@ws.apache.org, "John Kaputin" <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>
> >           Subject
> > Clarification
> > needed on HTTP
> > Transfer Coding
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Can someone please clarify some points about the http transer coding
> > extension properties defined in Part 2 section 6.8.2 Relationship to
> > WSDL Component Model [1]?
> >
> > It says the Binding has a {http transfer coding default} property that
> > is available to InterfaceMessageReference and InterfaceFaultReference
> > components. Is this worded correctly? Do components from the abstract
> > interface need http binding information?
> >
> > It also says BindingOperation has a {http transfer coding default}
> > property that is available to BindingMessageReference and BindingFault
> > components. Is 'BindingFault' a mistake, should this say
> > BindingFaultReference?
> >
> > There are no semantic rules about the relationship between the two
> > {http transfer coding default}  properties (i.e. in Binding and
> > BindingOperation), so they could potentially be different. I don't
> > think this would make sense, but it seems to be possible according to
> > the way this section is described.
> >
> > Finally, there are no semantic rules about the relationship between
> > BindingOperation's {http transfer coding default} property and the
> > {http transfer coding} properties if its two child components. As an
> > implementor I can infer what that relationship might be, but it would
> > be better if the spec stated in explicitly as it does for default and
> > actual extension properties elsewhere.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#http-transfer-coding-relate
> >
> > regards,
> > John Kaputin.
> >
>
>
Received on Friday, 9 June 2006 00:22:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:40 GMT