- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:36:15 -0500
- To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF6D57FCB2.692E139F-ON8525753F.004E7588-8525753F.00503BD6@us.ibm.com>
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
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2009 14:37:07 UTC