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

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

From: Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:01:13 +0200
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Cc: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <452DF649.3000206@crf.canon.fr>

Thinking about it a little bit more, your case may be covered by 
changing the sentence:
When present and equal to "required", it indicates that MTOM must be 
engaged.
by the following sentence:
When present and equal to "required", it indicates that MTOM MUST be 
supported and SHOULD be engaged.

I think that this change addresses your concern, although I am not very 
familiar with the SHOULD meaning and implications. My main fear is that 
the SHOULD may have different meanings for the service and the clients.
What do you think?
Youenn

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 Thursday, 12 October 2006 08:01:55 GMT

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