RE: In-Multi-Out MEP [was "WSDL 2.0 specification"]

Shlomo,

Please note, however, that the WSDL 2.0 Primer has added some guidance
on defining your own MEP.  You can view the current editor's draft:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-prime
r.html#more-interfaces-defining-meps

David Booth


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 5:07 PM
> To: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston); Shlomo Cwang
> Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: In-Multi-Out MEP [was "WSDL 2.0 specification"]
> 
> 
> 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 Friday, 10 June 2005 16:18:36 UTC