- From: Luca Barbato <luca.barbato@luminem.it>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:30:49 +0200
- To: Ben Francis <ben@krellian.com>
- Cc: public-wot-wg@w3.org
On 25/04/24 19:10, Ben Francis wrote: > As far as I can tell you're suggesting creating a new sub-protocol just > for asynchronous actions in the HTTP Basic Profile, but using binding > templates to solve ambiguities in the HTTP SSE Profile and HTTP Webhook > Profile (where using the subprotocol member is trickier, since it's > already in use). That's the idea. I'm starting from the concern of people having TD consumers that would get very confused by profiles. > Note that if you look carefully at the action protocol bindings in the > HTTP Basic Profile, they don't actually rely on using the queryaction > and cancelaction op names in forms. The protocol binding just assumes > that if a Consumer gets an ActionStatus object in response to > asynchronous action invocation, it can then perform queryaction and > cancelaction operations on the dynamic action resources linked in an > ActionStatus payload. This was a deliberate design decision so that the > queryaction and cancelaction operations don't need to be explicitly > exposed in Thing Descriptions (see the example Thing Description > https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/#example-4 <https://w3c.github.io/wot- > profile/#example-4>), which may confuse generic Consumers (the forms > wouldn't make sense anyway, since the URL endpoints are dynamically > generated). > > I realise that may not feel very neat, but you may be trying to solve a > problem that doesn't actually exist since there may be no forms to add > the subprotocol to (other than the invokeaction one, but the synchronous > member probably differentiates that sufficiently). If that's accepted we have to make it way more evident. Keep in mind that dealing with ActionAffordance::output + Form::response + Form:additionalResponse is apparently an uncharted territory for enough implementors. adding a subprotocol to the invoke action form might solve the pressing problem since then the consumer would not present the async action. lu
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2024 17:30:56 UTC