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

Re: [SPAM] RE: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:41:48 +0200
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Cc: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Message-id: <452D10BC.8010203@crf.canon.fr>

What you're really saying I think is that the optimization ought be set 
at the individual message level rather that at the operation level?

Can we do this already with the spec at it stands? I suggest keep the 
proposal aligned with the status quo, whatever it is, in the interest of 
moving to Rec sooner.

JJ.

Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
> Is this assumption adequate though?What if the capability is present 
> but the sending message did not need to utilize the optimization? 
> Think of a request-response and the response would be returning a .GIF 
> file. Would you engage the optimization in the request? I would think 
> not, but you may expect the response to be optimized.
> --umit
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>     [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Arthur Ryman
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 3:07 PM
>     *To:* Jonathan Marsh
>     *Cc:* 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; www-ws-desc@w3.org; 'Youenn Fablet'
>     *Subject:* RE: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal
>
>
>     Jonathan,
>
>     That isn't defined as far as I can tell. A "polite" server would
>     respond in the same format as the request.
>
>     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
>
>
>     *"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com>*
>
>     10/10/2006 06:04 PM
>
>     	
>     To
>     	Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>     cc
>     	"'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>,
>     <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
>     Subject
>     	RE: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal
>
>
>
>     	
>
>
>
>
>
>     I don’t think you answered my second, more specific, question. I
>     would expect either encoding to be accepted, but what is
>     generated? Always text/xml? Always XOP? Sometimes one and
>     sometimes the other? Based on the received message? Or on the
>     phase of moon?
>
>     *Jonathan Marsh* - _http://www.wso2.com_ <http://www.wso2.com/> -
>     _http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com_
>     <http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com/>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>     [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Arthur Ryman*
>     Sent:* Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:42 PM*
>     To:* Jonathan Marsh*
>     Cc:* 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; www-ws-desc@w3.org;
>     www-ws-desc-request@w3.org; 'Youenn Fablet'*
>     Subject:* RE: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal
>
>
>     Jonathan,
>
>     My reading of the text is that if MTOM is required then an
>     otherwise encoded message would be rejected. If it is optional,
>     then both MTOM and normal XML hexBinary or base64Binary encoding
>     are fine.
>
>     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
>
>     *"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com>*
>     Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>
>     10/10/2006 04:04 PM
>
>     	
>     To
>     	Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "'Youenn Fablet'"
>     <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
>     cc
>     	"'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>,
>     <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>     Subject
>     	RE: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal
>
>
>
>     	
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     I assume {optimizedMimeSeraizliation} = required means the service
>     will reject any message not XOP-encoded, and will only emit
>     messages in XOP-encoding.
>
>     But what does “may be engaged” mean? When I send a message with
>     text/xml when {optimizedMimeSerialization} = optional, what media
>     type should I expect to get back?
>     *
>     Jonathan Marsh* - _http://www.wso2.com_ <http://www.wso2.com/> -
>     _http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com_
>     <http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com/>
>
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *
>     From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>     [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Arthur Ryman*
>     Sent:* Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:02 AM*
>     To:* Youenn Fablet*
>     Cc:* Jean-Jacques Moreau; www-ws-desc@w3.org;
>     www-ws-desc-request@w3.org*
>     Subject:* Re: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal
>
>
>     Youenn,
>
>     Looks good.
>
>     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
>
>     *Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>*
>     Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>
>     10/10/2006 05:50 AM
>
>     	
>
>
>     To
>     	www-ws-desc@w3.org
>     cc
>     	Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
>     Subject
>     	F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal
>
>
>
>
>     	
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Per my action item, here is an alternative proposal for MTOM support
>     within WSDL2.0.
>     This is a translation of the current MTOM support through an
>     extension
>     element.
>     Regards,
>     Youenn
>     -----------------------------
>     The proposal is the following:
>
>     Add a new WSDL2.0/MTOM extension within section 5 (soap binding)
>     of the
>     WSDL20 adjunct specification, along the following lines.
>
>     //// WSDL Component Relationship /////
>     The WSDL2.0/MTOM extension adds the following property to the WSDL2.0
>     Endpoint, Binding, Binding Operation, Binding Fault, Binding Message
>     Reference and Binding Fault Reference components:
>     - {optimizedMimeSerialization} OPTIONAL. Its type is xs:token. When
>     present and equal to "required", it indicates that MTOM must be
>     engaged. When present and equal to "optional", it indicates that MTOM
>     may be engaged. When not present, no assertion is made about the
>     use of
>     MTOM.
>
>     The requiredness/availability of the MTOM engagement is defined by
>     the
>     closest present property, where closeness is defined by whether it
>     is at
>     the Endpoint component level, the Binding Message Reference
>     component or
>     Binding Fault Reference component level, the Binding Operation level,
>     the Binding Fault Reference level, or the Binding component level,
>     respectively.
>
>
>     //// XML Representation ////
>     The XML representation for the WSDL2.0/MTOM extension is an element
>     information item as follow:
>     <wsmtom:OptimizedMimeSerialization wsdl:required="true|false"?
>
>     xmlns:wsmtom="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/soap/features/http-optimization"/>
>     This is an empty global element that allows any namespaced attribute
>     (especially the wsdl:required attribute).
>
>     //// Mapping ////
>     The {optimizedMimeSerialization} property is present when a
>     wsmtom:OptimizedMimeSerialization element is present.
>     Its value is "required" if the wsdl:required attribute is present and
>     equals to "true". Otherwise its value is "optional".
>     -----------------------------
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 15:42:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:42 GMT