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

Re: Clarification needed on HTTP Transfer Coding

From: John Kaputin (gmail) <jakaputin@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:47:57 +0100
Message-ID: <4c2ae8f80605300247t1524c9bci3a0f48c119812f7e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: "John Kaputin" <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>, woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
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
> *<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#http-transfer-coding-relate>
>
> regards,
> John Kaputin.
>
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 09:48:11 GMT

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