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

RE: New "Additional MEPs" document

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:24:51 -0700
To: "'Amelia A Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008c01c6f9ec$d1123fb0$3901a8c0@DELLICIOUS>

Thanks, I'm sorry I used loaded language ;-).  Just confirming my
realization (don't know why I didn't realize it before) was correct.  I'm
not proposing changes, just refining my mental model!  And making sure the
lack of <infault> in testcases intended to test message-level interop on the
bindings in part 2 was reasonable.

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 10:01 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: New "Additional MEPs" document
> 
> 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 17:24:49 GMT

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