[Bug 6721] New: Attaching policy to implicit operations


           Summary: Attaching policy to implicit operations
           Product: WS-Resource Access
           Version: PR
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: All
        AssignedTo: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org
        ReportedBy: katy_warr@uk.ibm.com
         QAContact: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org

There are a number of issues already open addressing how we attach policies to
indicate that an endpoint supports virtual (implicit) operations and the
flavour/extent of that support.  For example,issue 6403
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6403 describes policy to indicate
that an endpoint supports enumeration and there are similar issues open for the
other specs (6402,6406, 6407).

These issues do not discuss how policy should be attached to the virtual
operation (i.e. one that does not appear in WSDL) itself.  They also don't
address what policy should be applied to the virtual operations by default. 
One option for default behaviour might be to default to the policy of the
endpoint, but this poses problems as many policies are applied at
operation/message level (and therefore are not available at the endpoint).

There are a number of possible solutions that we might adopt to solve this
problem.  I suggest that we choose a pattern and re-use that across all the
specs for simplicity and consistency.

For example, here's a potential pattern:

   ... <lots of policy for the endpoint>

   <wsra policy indicating wsra spec support>


   </wsra policy indicating wsra spec support>


The VirtualOperationPolicy defines the policy for the implicit operations
relating to the wsra spec support.

For example, the above pattern applied to eventing MIGHT look something like

<wsev:WSEventingSupported  ...>

        ... policies such as security policy to attach to subscribe request ...


If we agree on a pattern to try, the next step might be to take some real
examples (e.g. security policy) in order to check that the pattern works prior
to applying it across the specs.

This issue is also related to
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6694 which asks when operations
do/don't appear in the WSDL.  

It's probably best for us to address the other policy issues and 6694 before
this one - but this is an important issue as lack of clear specification in
this area will prevent interoperability and make life hard for implementers.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 18:24:34 UTC