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

RE: Parts 1 and 2 Treat Defaults Inconsistently with Eachother

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:35:54 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E802B826AA@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Recall that Jacek raised an issue [1] against computing the actual
values (and omitting the *-default properties from the component model.)
The requirements for defaults in the SOAP binding and for defaults in
part 1 are somewhat different.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC333

 

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 2:23 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Parts 1 and 2 Treat Defaults Inconsistently with Eachother

 


In Part 1 the <interface> element has a styleDefault attribute but there
is no corresponding property in the component model. The styleDefault
attribute is only used to determine the {style} property on the
Interface Operation component via the XML mapping rules 

However, in Part 2 there are four default attributes and they do get
mapped to component model properties: 
{soap mep default} 
{http transfer coding default} 
{http method default} 
{http query parameter separator default} 

These default properties are matched up with corresponding non-default
properties on the component model: 
{soap mep} 
{http transfer coding} 
{http method} 
{http query parameter separator} 

The "actual" values of the property in the message are defined by the
binding rules, not the XML mapping. I find this confusing. It also has
the disadvantage that it removes the rules from the component model  so
the component model builder can't evaluate them. It just copies the XML
attributes into the component model. Instead a message builder has to
have this logic. 

The Part 1 approach makes the component model simpler since the "actual"
value of the property is computed and stored in the component model. 

However, the Part 2 approach is also good because it makes WSDL
generation simpler. For example, suppose you have the same style on
several operations. It would be simpler to specify the default in the
component model and serialize the WSDL with the style ommitted on the
operations that matched the default. 

I propose that we improve the spec by using the best aspects of Part 1
and 2, and make them consistent. This requires the following changes: 

1.In Part 1, add a {style default} property to the Interface component. 
2. In Part 2, specify the rules for the properties in the XML mapping
instead of the message binding, e.g. {http method} is determined by the
actual value of the attribute if present, or the {http method default}
if present, or is GET if the operation is safe, and it POST otherwise.
This way, e.g. {http method} is the actual value used in the message. 

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
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2006 14:36:53 GMT

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