- 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 UTC