Re: Synchronous v/s Asynchronous, a WSA question, and few suggestions

Ram,

I agree with:

b) Section 2.9.1 in the Core Language Spec states that "A Binding 
component that defines bindings for an Interface component MUST define 
bindings for all the operations of that Interface component".  Shouldnt a 
similar assertion be made regarding the Faults declared in the interface 
as well? i.e.  "A Binding component that defines bindings for an Interface 
component MUST define bindings for all the faults of that Interface 
component"

Concerning global faults, simply define an interface that contains the 
faults and include that interface in the extends attribute of any other 
interface that uses them:

c) An interesting thought [on wsdl 2.0] - Why cant faults be global to a 
description - I have a scenario where the wsdl defines two interfaces - 
one for reserving flight tickets for the travel, and one for making hotel 
reservations for the travel.Each of these interfaces are served by two 
separate endpoints [lets say, outsourced to two different organizations]
Both of them throw a fault namely "CreditCardAuthorizationFault" and a 
"InsufficientFundsFault". Why cant this fault be declared globally, and 
referenced within each of the interfaces ? [I'm being too impractical, 
aint I ? :-) ] - But would definitely appreciate an explanation to this 
point. 


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



"Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
10/04/2006 08:09 PM

To
www-ws-desc@w3.org
cc

Subject
Synchronous v/s Asynchronous, a WSA question, and few suggestions






Gurus,
 
I am troubled by a few questions since a few days. Appreciate your 
comments in this matter.
 
a) What defines "synchronous" or "asynchronous" - Are this terms 
normatively defined in any related specification ?  Are these terms 
"adjectives" for message exchange patterns? 
b) Does "synchronous" interaction require the caller program to "block" on 
the response from the service ? [I know it really depends on what (a)'s 
answer is]
c) Can't a Request/Response transmission primitive [that wsdl 1.1 defines] 
 be asynchronous [thru wsdl extensions] ? The specification does not talk 
about the relationship between synchronicity and the type of the 
transmission primitive. So I assume this does not violate the conformance 
requirements. 
d) Is it correct if I state that synchronicity and asynchronicity of an 
interaction cannot be defined at the abstract level of a service 
definition and depends purely on the transport bindings being used ? [or 
if the user employs extensions for the operation in the abstract portion 
of the WSDL] 
e) What is the relationship between the transport specified in the WSDL 
1.1 Bindings and the ReplyTo/FaultTo requirements that are imposed on the 
service ? - confusing question, aint it ? :-) 
Let me explain with an example.
  I define a WSDL 1.1 service with a portType with a 
request/response/fault operation. I define WS-A headers for each of the 
input, output and fault in the binding section.  I wish to return faults 
from this operation to a FaultTo endpoint that is different from the 
ReplyTo endpoint. Shouldnt it be possible to send messages to the FaultTo 
endpoint on a different transport ? [ i.e. Lets say I wish to send faults 
to an Email Address]. Question is as follows - If so, would this require 
separate bindings for the operation to be defined within the WSDL ?". If 
this answer to this question is "yes", then, since transports are 
specified at the operation level, this would require two bindings, one for 
http and one over smtp.  And in the second binding, what does it mean to 
specify the information for the input and output - they are unused. :-)  I 
am gonna get killed for making this assumption , but I am really confused 
on this last point - I maybe wrong here. Or maybe WSDL 1.1 is tough to gel 
in with WSA requirements without relying on some extension mechanism. 
 
Few other points:-
a) I noticed that Figure 2-1 [xml infoset] in Section 2.2.1 in WSDL 2.0 
primer states that an interface should have 1-* number of operations. This 
should be changed to 0-*.[since there could be interfaces with zero 
operations, for instance, an interface that just defines faults] 
b) Section 2.9.1 in the Core Language Spec states that "A Binding 
component that defines bindings for an Interface component MUST define 
bindings for all the operations of that Interface component".  Shouldnt a 
similar assertion be made regarding the Faults declared in the interface 
as well? i.e.  "A Binding component that defines bindings for an Interface 
component MUST define bindings for all the faults of that Interface 
component"
c) An interesting thought [on wsdl 2.0] - Why cant faults be global to a 
description - I have a scenario where the wsdl defines two interfaces - 
one for reserving flight tickets for the travel, and one for making hotel 
reservations for the travel.Each of these interfaces are served by two 
separate endpoints [lets say, outsourced to two different organizations]
Both of them throw a fault namely "CreditCardAuthorizationFault" and a 
"InsufficientFundsFault". Why cant this fault be declared globally, and 
referenced within each of the interfaces ? [I'm being too impractical, 
aint I ? :-) ] - But would definitely appreciate an explanation to this 
point. 
 
rgds,
Ram