RE: issue 6398: updated proposal - HTTP Linkage

Hi Geoff et al,

 

I agree that BP compliance can be restrictive, as it limits the choices
for interoperability. For example we have customers that leverage
RPC/Encoded style but, BP prohibits its use. Hence we enable a BP
compliance mode for customers that need BP compliance. As I stated at
the first F2F in San Jose, we need to evaluate BP compliance with each
issue we consider and not as universally applicable thing, in the scope
of this work. We also need to decide which version of BP we want to
align with. The charter seems to say align with BP 1.1 but plan to be
compliant with BP 1.2 & BP 2.0 as they become WS-I Final material.
Certain aspects in BP 1.2 and 2.0 are not backwards compatible with BP
1.1. So, it is not a clear   In this case however, we fortunately do not
have a legacy and hence do not have a strong opinion. It would help if
we can attain more clarity on BP compliance (the various versions) and
how that would impact different specs in the WS-RA scope prior to
resolving the contentious issues such as these.

 

My 2 cents.

 

Regards,

 

Prasad

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Geoff
Bullen
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 9:50 AM
To: Christopher B Ferris
Cc: Doug Davis; Gilbert Pilz; public-ws-resource-access@w3.org;
public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: issue 6398: updated proposal - HTTP Linkage

 

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the email, and I appreciate your feedback and involvement.
To paraphrase, you seem to be saying that the root cause of the issue
here is not about dispatching at runtime, but about design time tools,
and their ability to consume an appropriate message format.  In
particular, BP has placed some restrictions (R2204) on the WSDL language
such that is it no longer possible for some tools to consume a message
that is not wrapped in an outer element.

 

At first glance, this appears to put the RA Working Group in a rather
difficult position.  On one hand we have a charter that states that we
should try to align with BP whenever it is appropriate.  On the other,
we have a responsibility to W3C (and the WS community in general) to
produce the best protocol possible, so it has the highest chance of
gaining wide industry adoption.  From your email, it seems that this
particular BP restriction is forcing some members of the WG  to advocate
a semantically useless wrapper element be inserted around 8 fundamental
Web Service messages (The Transfer messages) for no reason other than
the fact that their design tools cannot consume the appropriate message
formats.  This does not seem right.  Perhaps we should help the design
tool vendors by relaxing Basic Profile to allow this important use case
rather than have its effects cause the WG to produce sub-optimal
specifications?  Do you have any critical reasons why these wrapper
elements should be specified other than just to conform to BP?

 

Best Regards,

Geoff

 

From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:40 AM
To: Geoff Bullen
Cc: Doug Davis; Gilbert Pilz; public-ws-resource-access@w3.org;
public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: issue 6398: updated proposal - HTTP Linkage

 

Geoff, 

The concerns we have, have _nothing_ to do with dispatching. The issue
w/r/t the wrapper is so that a WSDL description 
can be written for an unspecified type in the SOAP body. 

In the current WS-T, the WSDL violates the WS-I BP (no matter which
version) because it has a message part that has a @type associated 
with an operation intended for a doc-literal binding. That is verboten. 

Per WS-I BP 1.1: 
R2204 A document-literal binding in a DESCRIPTION MUST refer, in each of
its soapbind:body element(s), only to wsdl:part element(s) that have
been defined using the element attribute. 

The purpose of the wrapper is to allow definition of an endpoint that
does not specify the  element content of the resource that is returned
(which is 
aligned with HTTP). If the specification were to require that all
transfer endpoints be described such that ONLY a single, specified GED
could be returned, well, I suppose that would work too, but would be
sub-optimal from our perspective since it is likely that there will be
endpoints that do not wish  specify the element content of the resource
that is returned. 

While there may be little value of the wrapper from your perspective,
there is from ours. Our tooling has been designed to conform with the
decisions 
made in the context of the WS- profiles. If you are intent in preserving
alignment of WS-T with HTTP, then WS-T needs to support the REST uniform

interface constraint that informed the design of HTTP. To do this, the
description of the interface (if it is to be conformant with the WS-I
profiles) must 
be designed such that there is a (single, defined) element definition
bound to the response. 

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Industry Standards
IBM Software Group, Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris> 
phone: +1 508 234 2986 

From: 

Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com> 

To: 

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 

Cc: 

Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>,
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 

Date: 

02/10/2009 03:15 PM 

Subject: 

RE: issue 6398: updated proposal - HTTP Linkage 

Sent by: 

public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org

 

________________________________




Doug, 
Can we up-level a bit for a moment here. 
  
>From what we understand, the WS-Transfer protocol was originally
designed to be aligned with HTTP, and currently still is.  You can even
see this in the names: Web Service Transfer Protocol - Hypertext
Transfer Protocol.  Basically, Transfer was designed to be HTTP over
SOAP over any SOAP binding.  This alignment with HTTP can also be seen
in the use of the same verbs and the separation of verb and message
body.  Currently the verbs are defined as wsa actions in the soap header
and the message body used in Transfer is delineated by <soap:body>.
Note that <soap:body> is used for all messages and carries no message
specific meaning or semantics. 
  
If we now look at the current proposal: 
Firstly, we note that there appears to be little real value to these
wrappers, in that they add no semantic meaning and do not aid in parsing
the message.  Basically we appear to be changing: 
<soap:body> ... <\soap:body> into 
<soap:body> <wrapper> ...  <\wrapper><\soap:body> 
  
The reason we seem to be doing this is to support BP 1.1 - as noted in
the subject of the Issue. 
  
>From our understanding, Basic Profile 1.1 was defined in a time before
Addressing was defined and so there were no action verbs.  In order to
solve this problem an outer element surrounding all soap body messages
was defined.  This outer element had semantic meaning - it was the verb
and was used to differentiate between soap messages.  Each name had to
be unique so that it could be used to dispatch the messages correctly.
This is the reason the outer element was created. 
  
If we were to follow Basic Profile 1.1 exactly, then each of the outer
elements (in this proposal called "wrappers") would have to have a
unique name, so they could be used for dispatch as stated above.  This
is what the proposal does. 
  
So what is the value of this wrapper now that addressing has been
standardized in W3C? 
Does it really still aid interop?  (the original reason for the
existence of BP 1.1) 
Surely that is only possible if the outer element name was still used as
a verb instead of using Addressing actions? 
  
So it would seem that Transfer is designed to separate the verb from the
message, and BP 1.1 is designed to put the verb in the message. 
  
Re-iterating the three principles outlined in an earlier email:
a) Transfer continues to have alignment with HTTP as much as possible.
b) Transfer is built on WS-A and honors the WS-A action based dispatch
model.
c) Transfer should be aligned with Basic Profile as much as possible. 
There is currently an open action item for Ashok to reach out to the TAG
and understand their real thoughts and goals around this issue.  We hope
to hear from them soon. 
  
--Geoff 
  
  
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com <mailto:dug@us.ibm.com> ] 
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 1:29 PM
To: Geoff Bullen
Cc: Gilbert Pilz; public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: RE: issue 6398: updated proposal - HTTP Linkage 
  

Geoff, 
 this raises some interesting questions, points and possibilities. 
1 - can you show me where this alignment of HTTP and Transfer is viewed
by the W3C Team/Tag as good thing?  As I've stated before, the team
comments [1] talk about a "parallel" between the two but that is not the
same thing as a statement of love.  In fact, the rest of the team
comments, and Tim's comments [2] could be interpreted as the exact
opposite.  The sharing of similar verbs is not enough to "align" the
two.  IMO, the key quote is (bolding is mine): 
...which means that WS-Transfer resources are potentially identified by
more than just a URI, making them unsuitable for referencing and use in
other Web technologies 
I'm having a hard time thinking of another WS spec that has caused more
tension between the Web/HTTP and SOAP worlds - aside from perhaps
WS-Addressing - and Transfer seems to have all of those same criticisms
plus more. 

2 - you seem to be really straining hard to avoid using meaningful XML
elements in the Body.  Can you please explain why?  Most WS specs have
element names in the Body that are not meaningless and in fact you
yourself opened an issue for MEX to follow this same pattern [3].  Why
should WS-Transfer be different from the other WS specs? I feel like
there's something deeper here and you're not letting us in on the
secret.  Especially when in the note below you now seem to be ok with a
wrapper - but you want it to have an HTTP-based meaning. 

3 - you assert that "More than other specifications, Transfer should
continue to be aligned with HTTP", I actually very strongly disagree
with this.  Web Services are transport agnostic and any attempt to make
it favor one transport over another should not be allowed. 

4 - WS-Transfer is, first and foremost, a SOAP specification.  Given a
choice between aligning with HTTP and the rest of the SOAP
specifications/stacks, I'd choose the latter. 

5 - having said that, your insistence that WS-Transfer be aligned with
HTTP is an interesting perspective and one that I think we need to
consider further - especially given the W3C's concerns about its lack of
alignment with the Web itself.  I think in the interest of trying to
address the W3C concerns (and this alignment you seem to see), I would
suggest that we consider having WS-Transfer profile its use of
WS-Addressing so that it bans the use of reference-parameters for
identification purposes - in all transports.  (We may even want to
consider banning their use entirely just to really force the issue).
And we then make a formal requirement that a "naked HTTP GET" to the
wsa:Address of a WS-Transfer resource's EPR be the semantic equivalent
of a WS-Transfer.Get to that same resource. This requirement will ensure
two things:  1) people aren't ignoring the "no ref-params for
identification purposes" rule, and 2) address the W3C's concern about
whether WS-Transfer resources will play nicely with the rest of the Web
technologies. IMO, this will go a lot further to align HTTP and
WS-Transfer than worrying about the name of an XML wrapper. 

[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/04/Comment
<http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/04/Comment>  
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/0061.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/0061.html>  
[3] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6500
<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6500>  

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com 

Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com> 

02/08/2009 01:03 PM 

 

To

Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> 

cc

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org"
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 

Subject

RE: issue 6398: updated proposal - HTTP Linkage


  

 

 

 





Gil, 
More than other specifications, Transfer should continue to be aligned
with HTTP.  Wrappers represent one area we can look at in order to
achieve that goal.  looking at RFC 2616, we note that it uses some
specific terms to refer to what Doug might be calling a wrapper. 
Some possibilities we found we: 
body 
entity-body 
message-body 
 
Ashok, do you think that the TAG would find the use of any of these
terms as the wrapper for all 8 Transfer messages as further indication
of the alignment between Transfer and HTTP?  Is there another wrapper
name that would be more aligned? 
 
--Geoff 
 
 
From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com
<mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> ] 
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:38 PM
To: Geoff Bullen
Cc: Doug Davis; public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Re: issue 6398: updated proposal - HTTP Linkage 
 
Geoff,

Let me see if I understand your objections. You are saying (and correct
me if I am wrong) that, because Doug chose to name his wrapper elements
things like "wst:Get" and "wst:Put", this implies that these wrappers
will or should be regarded as verbs. Would it make any difference if we
called them "wst:Foo", "wst:FooResponse", "wst:Baz", "wst:BazResponse",
etc.?

- gp

Geoff Bullen wrote: 
Doug, 
 
Transfer and HTTP are already linked to some extent, I think we agree on
that, and from the number of emails going around concerning this
linkage, I suspect it is certainly one we need to look at more closely. 
 
One of the ways in which Transfer and HTTP are currently linked, is that
they share a common model. 
As stated in an earlier email, the HTTP message body carries the content
(or message body) and not the verb (action).  In the same way, the
Transfer SOAP body carries the content and not the action.  In both
cases, the action is handled separated from the message body. 
 
Now let's look at your current wrapper proposal. 
While you call it a "wrapper" proposal, the names you use for those
wrapper elements are the same as the names of the associated actions
(verbs).  For example: 
The action: "http://.../transfer/GetResponse <http://> " directly maps
to a corresponding outer element in the body: 
wst:GetResponse ...> 
      xs:any +                         
</wst:GetResponse> 
This is the pattern that is used throughout your wrapper proposal. 
 
Stating the obvious, there appears to be a direct correlation between
the action name and the name of the outer element of the soap body (in
this case "GetResponse").  Whether implied or intentional, this
correlation breaks the basic model of separation (of verb and content)
described earlier.  Note that it also violates the basic premise of
addressing, that wsa:action is what is used to differentiate messages. 
 
--Geoff 
 
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>
[mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org> ] On Behalf Of Doug
Davis
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:01 PM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 
Subject: RE: issue 6398: updated proposal 
 

To follow-up on the conf call yesterday.... 

Geoff mentioned the Team Comments on WS-Transfer [1] as an implicit
endorsement of the supposed alignment between HTTP and WS-Transfer.
However, I think this is not the case: 
- the team comments do not actually say that the "parallel" between HTTP
and WS-Transfer is a good thing it just points out that both have
similar verbs/operations. 
- in fact, after this similarity is pointed out the comments go on to
say how misaligned WS-Transfer is with the Web due to the use of EPRs
instead of URIs.  It says things like WS-Transfer resources could be
"...unsuitable for referencing and use in other Web technologies". 
- add to this Tim's comments [2], as Bob pointed out on the call, that
there is a concern over WS-Transfer's lack of alignment with HTTP around
such things as its use (or lack of use) of HTTP GET.  Its worth noting
that Tim reiterates the concern about the misalignment of WS-Transfer
with the Web itself because of its use of EPRs. 
- also, no where in the team comments do they make any reference to the
notion that because the Body is 'unwrapped' its more aligned with HTTP.
It doesn't even touch on this subject at all.  And, as I pointed out on
the call, this would be a mistake for them to even head down this path
because there are lots of cases where the HTTP Body is wrapped (like
mime-encoding) and those are clearly not misaligned with HTTP. 

I do agree with Geoff that the alignment of WS-Transfer with HTTP, and
the Web itself, should be more closely examined - especially given the
Team/Tag/Tim comments - but this is a separate issue that has nothing to
do with whether the Transfer operations include a wrapper in the Body or
not. 

[1]  http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/04/Comment
<http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/04/Comment>  
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/0061.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Oct/0061.html>  

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
<mailto:dug@us.ibm.com>  

Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
<mailto:Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>  
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>  

02/03/2009 12:35 PM 

  

 

To

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 

cc

"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org"
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>  

Subject

RE: issue 6398: updated proposal



  

  

 

 

 





Hi Doug, 
Having re-read our previous email a couple of times, it is still kind of
unclear exactly what you think we are in agreement on here. :-)  While
it is hopeful we will find common ground at some point, we are not there
yet. 

Regarding Transfer Create Operation ... 

T.Create and RT.Create currently have different cardinalities and one of
them therefore must change in order for them to remain "in sync". 

The current version of T.Create() states that the first child element
MUST NOT be omitted. But the draft proposal allows senders to emit empty
Create requests. This means, current Transfer Resource Factories cannot
process the proposed Create request messages without changing the
underlying processing logic. 

Cheers, 
Geoff 



From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com <mailto:dug@us.ibm.com> ] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:27 PM
To: Geoff Bullen
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 
Subject: RE: issue 6398: updated proposal 


Geoff, 
thanks for the comments.  I'm glad that we're in agreement that there is
no functional difference between what the current version of Transfer
and my proposal because I tried to ensure that it was just a syntax
change.  As to the change of cardinality of Create, I was very clear as
to why I changed it - please reread my proposal.  Also, it does not
break backwards compatibility - aside from the addition of a wrapper,
existing impls will still be sending valid WS-T messages. 

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
<mailto:dug@us.ibm.com>  

Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
<mailto:Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>  

02/02/2009 07:32 PM 

  

  

 

To

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 

cc

"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org"
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>  

Subject

RE: issue 6398: updated proposal



  

  

  

 

 

 





Doug,
We have been looking more closely at the wrapper issue (Issue 6398) and
your current proposal and there are a number of concerns that we have.

Summary
We believe that the proposed changes will affect the current alignment
of Transfer with HTTP, and that it breaks the current implementation of
Transfer by changing the cardinality of  message formats.  More specific
details can be seen below:

1) Wrappers and the Alignment of Transfer with HTTP
We believe that the proposed wrapper changes disrupt the current
alignment between Transfer and HTTP.  Since the TAG articulated in Nov,
2008 that they were interested in a closer alignment between Transfer
and HTTP, it is unclear to us if this is the right direction for the WG
to be heading.

There are a set of principles that guide us as we move through this
issue:
a) Transfer continues to have alignment with HTTP as much as possible.
b) Transfer is built on WS-A and honors the WS-A action based dispatch
model.
c) Transfer should be aligned with Basic Profile as much as possible.

With regards to goal a) above, the HTTP message body carries the content
(or message body) and not the verb (action).  In the same way, the
Transfer SOAP body carries the content and not the action. We believe
using specific wrapper element names, such as <get> and <getresponse>,
implies there is semantic meaning in those names, which affects the
separation described above and thus disrupts the existing alignment
between Transfer and HTTP.  Any semantic meaning also goes against goal
b).

Also with regards to goal a), the WG has not yet received any technical
comments from the TAG nor has the TAG articulated its wishes clearly to
us.  Shouldn't we engage the TAG ASAP?


2) Wrappers, Cardinality and the Create verb
While you expressed a desire to treat cardinality as separate from the
wrapper issue, your proposal does in fact change the cardinality of the
Transfer messages, Delete and Create.  While changing the cardinality of
T.delete does not break backwards compatibility, changing the
cardinality of T.create certainly does.  It is unclear to us why your
proposal has chosen to break backwards compatibility with T
implementations.  It is our understanding that there are many current
interoperable implementations of the T spec, so would not it be more
prudent to align more closely with the current version of T?

--Geoff


From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>
[mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org> ] On Behalf Of Doug
Davis
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 10:34 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 
Subject: RE: issue 6398: updated proposal


Hey Geoff,
thanks for the heads up on the cardinality - I'll double check those -
but what's correct depends on whether you're looking at the schema or
the text of the spec.  For example, GetResponse, per the pseudo schema
should be as you noted (+), but per the schema it should be a singleton.
Either way - this is our chance to make sure things are aligned. As for
the MEX change, despite some possible ribbing from Jeff :-), I like
consistency - so if you open an issue I wouldn't object.

All,
below is a modified version of the proposal, showing the pseudo schema
changes to T and RT (some of the cardinalities will vary slightly from
previous proposal and from the specs in an effort to ensure things are
consistent and allow for RT to do its job) - I tried to make a note of
each one as I detected it (hopefully the following shows up ok for
everyone - if not let me know and I'll put it into a separate file):

T-GetRequest:                 RT-GetRequest:
<wst:Get ... >                <wst:Get Dialect="xs:anyURI" ...>
xs:any *                       <wsrt:Expression ...> xs:any
</wsrt:Expression> *
</wst:Get>                    </wst:Get>
Note: to allow for more than one Expression, I had to change the 'xs:any
?' to a "xs:any *" on the xs:any of the T.Get(), and for full
extensibility (an attribute on Get could make the need for children
unnecessary).

T-GetResponse:                RT-GetResponse:
<wst:GetResponse ...>         <wst:GetResponse ...>
xs:any +                         <wsrt:Result...>xs:any</wsrt:Result> +
</wst:GetResponse>            </wst:GetResponce>
Note: We should consider changing the "xs:any +" to "xs:any *" since the
resource representation could technically be empty and we should allow
for that (<wsrt:Result>+ too), and for full extensibility (an attribute
on GetResponse could make the need for children unnecessary).

T-PutRequest:                 RT-PutRequest:
<wst:Put ...>                 <wst:Put Dialect="xs:anyURI" ...>
xs:any +                       <wsrt:Fragment ...> +
</wst:Put>                    <wst:Put>
Note: We should change "xs:any +" to "xs:any *" to allow for an empty
represenation to be 'put', and for full extensibility (an attribute on
Put could make the need for children unnecessary).

T-PutResponse:                RT-PutResponse:
<wst:PutResponse ...>         <wst:PutResponse ...>
xs:any ?                       xs:any ?
</wst:PutResponse>            </wst:PutResponse>
Note: We should change the "xs:any ?" to "xs:any *" to allow for full
extensbility.

T-DeleteRequest:              RT-DeleteRequest:
<wst:Delete ...>              <wst:Delete ...>
xs:any *                      xs:any *
</wst:Delete>                 </wst:Delete>
Note: I added the "xs:any *" extensibility point in here.

T-DeleteResponse:             RT-DeleteResponse:
<wst:DeleteResponse ...>      <wst:DeleteResponse>
xs:any ?                       xs:any ?
</wst:DeleteResponse>         </wst:DeleteResponse>
Note: We should change the "xs:any ?" to "xs:any *" to allow for full
extensbility.

T-CreateRequest:              RT-CreateRequest:
<wst:Create ...>              <wst:Create Dialect="xs:anyURI" ...>
xs:any *                       <wsmex:Metadata ...> ?
                            <wsrt:Fragment ...> *
</wst:CreateRequest>          </wst:CreateRequest>
Note: I changed the "xs:any +" to "xs:any *" for three reasons: 1) it
seems like it should be possible to allow the entire resource to have
default values, 2) per the RT spec the mex and fragment elements are
optional, 3) to allow for full extensibility (an attribute on the Create
could make up for the absence of child elements).

T-CreateResponse:             RT-CreateResponse:
<wst:CreateResponse ...>      <wst:CreateResponse ...>
<wst:ResourceCreated>         <wst:ResourceCreated>
xs:any ?                      xs:any ?
</wst:CreateResponse>         </wst:CreateResponse>
Note: We should change the "xs:any ?" to "xs:any *" to allow for full
extensbility.

We should discuss the "xs:any ?" -> "xs:any *" notes I made - if there
isn't any objection we can include it as part of this.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM  |  Web Services Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM T/L 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
<mailto:dug@us.ibm.com> 

Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
<mailto:Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org> 
01/16/2009 12:09 PM
To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org"
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 
Subject
RE: issue 6398: updated proposal







Doug,
A couple of things:
1)      I believe the "xs:any" defined in GetResponse, PutRequest,
CreateRequest should actually be "xs:any +" defining  one or more.
2)      I am wondering if, for the sake of consistency and
extensibility, we should also be looking at the GetMetadata Request and
Response messages in MEX and adding a similar outer wrappers and
extensibility concepts?
Thoughts?
--Geoff

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>
[mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org> ] On Behalf Of Doug
Davis
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:36 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 
Subject: issue 6398: updated proposal


per my AI from yesterday, the updated pseudo schema for the wrapped
WS-Transfer operations would be:

GetRequest:
<wst:Get ... >
xs:any ?
</wst:Get>

GetResponse:
<wst:GetResponse ...>
xs:any
</wst:GetResponse>

PutRequest:
<wst:PutRequest ...>
xs:any
</wst:PutRequest>

PutResponse:
<wst:PutResponse ...>
xs:any ?
</wst:PutResponse>

DeleteResponse:
<wst:DeleteResponse ...>
xs:any ?
</wst:DeleteResponse>

CreateRequest:
<wst:CreateRequest ...>
xs:any
</wst:CreateRequest>

CreateResponse:
<wst:CreateResponse ...>
<wxf:ResourceCreated>endpoint-reference</wxf:ResourceCreated>
xs:any ?
</wst:CreateResponse>

In looking at how this impacts RT... it shouldn't. RT overrides T's Body
(in some cases already using a wrapper similar to the above) so that can
continue as is. The only thing missing from the previous proposal was
the extensibilty points on the wrapper elements so that attributes could
be added - but that was a typo :-) .  Existing RT can continue to
override the the above messages with a well defined element - this,
along with the RT header allows the receiver to know this isn't a
normal/vanilla Transfer operation.

There is no impact on MEX.  I couldn't find any reference to the
transfer operations that needed to be changed - no samples using it
either.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM  |  Web Services Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM T/L 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
<mailto:dug@us.ibm.com>