W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > August 2002

RE: issue 227

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:03:40 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A06FE1@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com'" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Mark A. Jones" <jones@research.att.com>
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, jacek@systinet.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, xmlp-comments@w3.org

Hi Noah,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 20 August 2002 19:09
> To: Mark A. Jones
> Cc: Mark Baker; jacek@systinet.com; marc.hadley@sun.com;
> moreau@crf.canon.fr; Williams, Stuart; xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: issue 227
> I'm backed up from being out sick, and haven't read this 
> whole thread.  At 
> the risk of jumping in without context:
> Mark Jones writes:
> >> Upon reading Noah's minutes, I think 
> >> that Mark (Baker) is probably right 
> >> about the interpretation of point 
> >> (3) -- "leave web method as a
> >> mandatory feature of the http binding". 
> Let's be careful.  My interpretation of the WG's decision 
> (with which I happen to concur) is:
> 1) It is not in general prohibitied for a given binding to depend 
> mandatorily on a certain feature. 

I believe that I have said twice now that I can live with this and why

> Stated more verbosely:  it is note 
> required that a binding specify how that binding might be used if the 
> information required by some particular feature(s) is not supplied, and 
> thus if the processing mandated by that feature is not performed. 

That's an interesting restatement of the resolution.

> 2) In particular, the HTTP binding will continue to depend in this manner 
> on the WebMethod feature.  Thus, the HTTP binding spec mandates that the 
> rules of webMethod MUST be follwed, and those in turn call for 
> specification of a partcular method property.

I have, I think, accepted that that is what the WG has resolved [2]. I have
stated that I don't intent to contest it and why [2].

> >> It certainly implies that 
> >> implementations must code for the feature.
> 3)  Here's where we have to be careful.  These are all abstractions in any

> case, and nothing at any level of the properties presentation (I.e. 
> feature-based or otherwise) says how to structure your code or APIs.

Yes, indeed, in large part this is why I can let the matter rest with the
WG's resolution - from outside the box there is no objective test that can
be applied to determine whether the requirement has been complied with.

> In 
> your favorite Java/PERL/whatever implementation you can indeed infer 
> methods in a wide variety of ways.

> You must merely be capable of 
> answering the question when asked:  did your implementation behave as if 
> there was a known, stable value for the web method, and if so, to it 
> behave in a manner conformant with the feature spec.

Yes... if that the conformance challenge I believe I can give answers to
both questions.
> I believe that all this was settled quite crisply and finally at the F2F. 
> Where is the remaining ambuguity or discomfort (obviously I understand 
> some of the discomfort, as the F2F decision was clearly a compromise in 
> the view of some, but I thought it was settled.)

This thread was keyed off my seeking *clarification* of the resolution text
posted to xmlp-comments.

I think that this has been discussed and clarified to let the matter rest as
resolved by the WG.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------

Best regards

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Aug/0051.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Aug/0058.html
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 05:05:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:59 UTC