Re: Counter proposal for Issue 6398

Geoff,
  The guiding principle of your proposal is that the rest of the WS 
community needs to change rather than WS-Transfer.  You keep repeating 
that the charter talks about trying to maintain backwards compatibility 
with existing implementations - but you seem to be ignoring that this 
doesn't mean that it needs to be done at the expense of all other WS 
activities.  Implementations of WS-Transfer will need to change - if 
nothing else to pick up the new namespace - that alone opens the door for 
other reasonable changes.  Given that opening, people will need to decide 
for themselves which piece of work is smaller, and more reasonable to 
expect of people:
a) while picking up the other WS-Transfer changes, WS-Transfer 
implementations will need to deal with the wrapper
or
b) change BP, change all existing BP compliant runtimes and toolings, 
allow for these new usage patterns in all future WS work - not just 
WS-Transfer, not have WSDL for some usecases (as Geoff points out) and 
change RT and its implementations

The answer is obvious to me.  However, if you really want to pursue 'b' 
you are free to do so by opening new issues in BP.  However, since you 
seem to like to revisit the charter, let's not also forget that it talks 
about us completing our work in a timely fashion.  Given that any such 
change to BP is not only unlikely (IMO), but would also not be publicly 
visible for quite a long time, this WG needs to make its decisions based 
on the information/specs/profiles available to us now - and not on some 
future piece of work that might or might not happen. 

BTW, I'm still waiting for your responses to my questions I asked in a 
previous note [1]  about why WS-Transfer _must_ be different from pretty 
much all other WS specs [2]. 

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0118.html
[2]  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZIvgQ9ik48

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



Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
02/23/2009 10:38 PM

To
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, 
"public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org" 
<public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>
cc

Subject
Counter proposal for Issue 6398






 
Summary of Counter Proposal
1.      The requirements for BP compliant WSDL are relaxed for 
WS-Transfer.
2.      All 8 WS-Transfer Messages remain as is, i.e. with no wrapper 
elements.
3.      All RT messages have their outer wrapper elements removed.
4.      Transfer Create message changes cardinality to 0 or more. 
 
This proposal avoids disrupting the interoperability of existing Transfer 
implementations by remaining compatible with protocols and formats that 
depend  on it (see charter), provides an efficient protocol for the 8 key 
Transfer messages, allows Transfer Create to handle the null constructor 
case (and offers a smooth migration path from submission to the standard) 
and changes the RT specification to reference Transfer in an appropriate 
manner.
 
Counter Proposal Details
1.      The requirements for BP compliant WSDL are relaxed for 
WS-Transfer.
Based on the need to create an efficient wire protocol, the WG should 
agree that those Basic Profile requirements pertaining to the WSDL 
definition, that prevent such a format being specified, are relaxed for 
WS-T and WS-RT.  These requirements include: R2202, R2712, R2204 and R9981
.  As part of the issue resolution, it should be made clear that BP 
alignment is made on a case by case basis and that this is a specific 
relaxation of Basic Profile requirements for this particular purpose and 
not a general relaxation of all BP requirements, either for this or 
related specs.
In order for some tools vendors to make progress on this, it may be 
interesting to consider using Transfer policy assertions to make the 
offending WSDL sections implicit, rather than explicit, thus eliminating 
the need to define the WSDL at all.  While this may have other 
implications, it may be worth discussing this option.
In terms of support for multiple children in the soap body, SOAP 1.2 does 
support this concept, and many SOAP 1.2 implementations also support it. 
Where a soap implementation does not support it, we believe that Transfer 
can be implemented in a way that conforms to this requirement. 
2.      All 8 WS-Transfer Messages remain as is, i.e. with no new wrapper 
elements added.
There are no changes to the spec required to implement this.
3.      All RT messages have their outer wrapper elements removed.
In order to maintain alignment with the Transfer specification, all outer 
wrapper elements defined in the RT specification should be removed.  The 
associated RT messages would now look like:
T-GetRequest:                 RT-GetRequest:
<soap:body>                   <soap:body> 
  xs:any *                       <wsrt:Expression Dialect="xs:anyURI" ...> 
xs:any </wsrt:Expression> *
</soap:body>                  </soap:body>

T-GetResponse:                RT-GetResponse:
<soap:body>                   <soap:body>
  xs:any +                         <wsrt:Result...>xs:any</wsrt:Result> +
</soap:body>                  </soap:body>

T-PutRequest:                 RT-PutRequest:
<soap:body>                   <soap:body>
    xs:any +                       <wsrt:Fragment Dialect="xs:anyURI" ...> 
+
</soap:body>                  </soap:body>

T-PutResponse:                RT-PutResponse:
<soap:body>                   <soap:body>
  xs:any ?                       xs:any ?
</soap:body>                  </soap:body>


T-DeleteRequest: 
<soap:body> 
  xs:any * 
</soap:body> 

T-DeleteResponse: 
<soap:body> 
  xs:any * 
</soap:body> 


T-CreateRequest:              RT-CreateRequest:
<soap:body>                   <soap:body>
  xs:any *                       <wsmex:Metadata ...> ?
                                 <wsrt:Fragment ...> *
</soap:body>                  </soap:body>

T-CreateResponse:             RT-CreateResponse:
<soap:body>                   <soap:body>
  <wst:ResourceCreated>         <wst:ResourceCreated>
    xs:any ?                      xs:any ?
  </wst:ResourceCreated>        </wst:ResourceCreated>
  xs:any *                      xs:any *
</soap:body>                  </soap:body>
4.      Transfer Create message changes cardinality to 0 or more. 
In order to support the case of a null constructor, the Transfer Create 
message in the schema should be changed from
xs:any +
To
xs:any *
The charter states that WS-Transfer should remain compatible with 
protocols that depend on it, and offer a smooth migration path.  This can 
be achieved here in that if original implementations which do not support 
a zero element create would simply fault (t:InvalidRepresentation) anyway. 
 We should suggest in the migration instructions that this fault should 
continue to be used if the implemented code does not support null create 
messages.
 
--Geoff