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

Re: New "Additional MEPs" document

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:00:43 -0400
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com>
Cc: jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <20061027130043.a8a9e46c.alewis@tibco.com>

Uh.  I have no problem with the facts presented, but I find the labels attached to things to be a little odd.

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:11:35 -0700
"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com> wrote:
>A question - as a consequence of removing these meps (actually as a
>consequence of not having bindings that support them), one will not
>see an <inFault> element in a WSDL that uses the standard bindings.
><inFault> exists only to support extended MEPs in conjunction with a
>an extended binding.  I.e.  <inFault> is in the same category as
>messageLabel, used for supporting extensions but unnecessary when
>sticking to the basics.  Correct?

Rephrasing:

Some  MEPs are not used by the binding extensions provided in the WSDL Adjuncts document.  We propose to publish those MEPs separately, in a Note, while continuing to publish three MEPs which are referenced by the binding extensions created by the WSD WG in the same document with those extensions.  A consequence of doing so is that the inFault element (similarly to the messageLabel attribute of operation) is not directly referenced by the published binding extensions.

My objection is to the use of loaded terms, contrasting "basic" and "standard" "bindings" against "extended" "bindings" (in fact, we are talking about WSDL extensions to support particular bindings in either case; it's a question of whether we wrote the extensions in the WG, or we are providing facilities to others to write them).  I am not entirely certain that we have written the best of all possible http and soap extensions, candidly, so having a facility which will allow others to do so relatively completely seems valuable, and avoiding the suggestion that we have done everything that could ever be needed for WSDL seems also worthwhile.

messageLabel is required only when a MEP contains more than one message in a given direction.

pattern is always required, but we considered the case of request-response (in-out with fault-replaces-message) to be so common that we have set it to be the default, when the pattern attribute is missing.

Setting these sorts of defaults doesn't make them standard or basic, however.  "Common" is certainly at least an arguably accurate adjective; "used by the WG-defined binding extensions" is, I think, inarguable.

Amy!
(pedantically)

>
>Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com -
>http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:07 AM
>> To: Jean-Jacques Moreau
>> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: New "Additional MEPs" document
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you, Jean-Jacques.
>> 
>> I will undertake the revisions as soon as I get a chance.  Jonathan,
>> it probably won't happen by tomorrow's conference call.  However,
>> could you set the deadline for my outstanding action to next week?
>> I'll try to have the Note completed and ready for approval by the
>> working group by that time.
>> 
>> Amy!
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:17:05 +0200
>> Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> wrote:
>> 
>> >Amy,
>> >
>> >As part of my action, I have just commited a new document that will
>> >contain the additional MEPs moved out of Part 2. The file is
>> >available under W3C CVS as :
>> >
>> >    /sources/public/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-additional-meps.xml
>> >
>> >I have kept the introduction, notations, namespaces and MEP sections
>> >as is, leaving you the pleasure of deleting whatever you deem
>> >unnecessary. I've compressed the change log**.
>> >
>> >I've also removed the MEPs in Part 2 which are not used in our
>> >bindings. Namely, I've kept only in-only, robust-in-only and in-out.
>> >
>> >I believe this discharges me of my action item.
>> >
>> >JJ.
>> >
>> >** Interestingly, the change log represents 1/4th the number of
>> >lines of Part 2.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Amelia A. Lewis
>> Senior Architect
>> TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
>> alewis@tibco.com
>


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Friday, 27 October 2006 17:01:59 GMT

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