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

Fw: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:19:41 -0400
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9297C5E1.D03D2E72-ON85257205.006384C1-85257205.0064ADB5@ca.ibm.com>
I've been thinking about this more. Maybe as a fallback for MTOM we can 
simply rely on HTTP content negotiation. Any client that undertands it can 
send an Accept header. An MTOM-savy server can look for this and alo=so 
advertise its preference for MTOM.

Would this satisfy the short-term Canon requirement?

In the future, a WS-Policy assertion could be defined. 

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
----- Forwarded by Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM on 10/12/2006 02:07 PM -----

Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
10/12/2006 09:33 AM

To
"Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
cc
"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Jonathan Marsh" 
<jonathan@wso2.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org, 
"Youenn Fablet" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Subject
RE: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal







Umit, 

Since MTOM uses the media type application/xop+xml, this sounds like a 
good use case for HTTP content negotiation as Youenn observed. The client 
SHOULD use an HTTP Accept header to say that it prefers MTOM. The SOAP 
Binding does allow the {http headers} property when the underlying 
transport is HTTP. 

That leaves other transports, which we don't really describe in Part 2 
anyway. Someone would have to define an extension for another transport 
and say how content negotiation worked. 

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 


"Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
10/11/2006 11:13 AM 


To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com> 
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








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://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://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 18:20:16 GMT

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