- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:06:45 -0700
- To: <dbooth@hp.com>, "Shlomo Cwang" <scwang@tti-telecom.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thank you for your comment, which we tracked as LC114 [1]. The Working Group reaffirmed its decision not to define such a MEP in the core, nor to provide further guidance on how to define MEP extensions. If this resolution is unacceptable please let us know within two weeks. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC114 > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc- > comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Booth > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 9:04 AM > To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > Cc: Shlomo Cwang > Subject: In-Multi-Out MEP [was "WSDL 2.0 specification"] > > > [Comments received from Shlomo Cwang <scwang@tti-telecom.com>] > > -----Forwarded Message----- > From: Shlomo Cwang <scwang@tti-telecom.com> > To: 'David Booth' <dbooth@w3.org> > Subject: RE: WSDL 2.0 specification > Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:27:23 +0200 > > David, > > By all means. Please, forward them to the public list. I hope the > Working > Group will reconsider these issues. > The rationale for the In-Multi-Out MEP is the "bulk data retrieval" > scenario > we very often find in Telecom and non-Telecom applications. At the > back-end, > these services are usually implemented using an iterator design > pattern, > which would map very nicely to the In-Multi-Out MEP. > As for the binding, we could potentially use a CORBA IIOP or JMS > binding. > Incidentally, I'm TTI's representative in the MTOSI (Multi-Technology > Operations System Interface) Working Group of the Telemanagement > Forum. I'm > hoping to propose the use of WSDL 2.0 for the next phase version of > the > MTOSI interface, but I need to be sure that the WSDL MEPs match the > operations' patterns of the interface. > Thanks again, > > Shlomo > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 9:29 PM > To: Shlomo Cwang > Subject: Re: WSDL 2.0 specification > > > Shlomo, > > Thanks for your feedback and questions. My answers are below. May I > also forward them to the public list public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > for > Last Call comments, so that others can read them and the Working Group > can track them? > > > On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 11:23, Shlomo Cwang wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > My name is Shlomo and I'm investigating the potential use of WSDL > 2.0 for > > the description of Telecom-based Web Services. > > I know that you're involved in the WSDL 2.0 specification and I > kindly > > request your answers regarding some aspects of the spec which are > not > clear > > to me. I appreciate your cooperation. The questions are: > > > > 1) Why has the In-Multi-Out pattern been deleted from the spec? > > As far as I recall there were two reasons: 1. nobody in the Working > Group had a particular need for it; 2. we don't have a binding that > uses > it. > > > > > 2) We need to describe an asynchronous Request-Multiple Response > > interaction. How are we supposed to describe it without the In- > Multi-Out > > pattern? > > There are several options, though I don't know if you would consider > any > of them good enough for your purposes. > > 1. Use the in-out pattern (regular request/response), but specify an > additional application-level constraint (outside of WSDL) that there > may > be multiple instances of the response. Thus, the WSDL document itself > would be insufficient for a client to make use of the service. The > client would *also* need to know of this additional application-level > constraint. > > 2. Define the request and response as two separate one-way operations, > and specify application-level constraints (outside of WSDL) to > indicate > that one request may be followed by multiple responses. From a WSDL > perspective, each request would be a separate WSDL operation and each > response would be a separate operation, but the application could view > the combination of a request and multiple responses as representing a > single application-level operation. > > 3. Define a new MEP and corresponding binding extension for > request-multi-response. > > > > > 3) The specification states that on top of the 8 pre-defined > patterns, > > additional ones may be defined, but it doesn't provide a formal > > language/notation/syntax for the pattern extensibility. How is the > user of > > the spec supposed to define new ones? > > Good point. I think it would make sense to add some guidance on this > to > either the spec or the primer. The basic answer: > > 1. Look around on the Web to see if somebody else has already defined > one that is close enough to what you want. > > 2. Write an HTML document that clearly defines the MEP, and post it at > a > stable URL that will represent the formal (URL) name of the MEP, such > as > http://example.com/2005/ws/in-multi-out. > > 3. Write a corresponding binding extension for your MEP. > > 4. Publicize your new MEP and binding extension, so that others can > implement and use it. > > Note that the above procedure does *not* cause your MEP to become > automatically recognized and usable by WSDL toolkits. It simply > provides a well-defined mechanism for naming and reusing them. > > If you think the Working Group should reconsider its decision to drop > the request-multiple-response MEP, then please send your comments to > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org. Please also explain why, and describe > your use case. > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Shlomo > > > > > > Shlomo Cwang > > Communication Solutions Manager > > TTI Telecom > > Petach Tikvah, Israel > > Office +972 3 926-9736 > > scwang@tti-telecom.com > > > > Information in this e-mail and its attachments is confidential and > may be > > privileged. This e-mail is for the exclusive use of the intended > > recipient(s). If you are not one of the intended recipients, you are > hereby > > informed that any use, disclosure, distribution, and/or copying of > this > > information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > information > in > > error, please inform the sender and then delete it from your system > > immediately. Thank you. > -- > > David Booth > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard >
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2005 21:07:11 UTC