- From: Chou, Wu (Wu) <wuchou@avaya.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:11:47 -0400
- To: "Gilbert Pilz" <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>, "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>, "Geoff Bullen" <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, "Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com>
- Message-ID: <F81BDFA28AE48D4793E253362D1F7A740112AC9E@300813ANEX2.global.avaya.com>
Doug, Gil, Geoff, Here is a draft of requirement list of issue 6401-6661 for discussion. It is a minor extension to the use case list, since the use case list is more of a requirement list. Please let me know your comments/suggestions. If there is a need, we can go over them in a conference call next Monday afternoon. Thanks, - Wu Chou. ---------------------------------------------------- Requirements for Issue 6401-6661 (Draft version 0.1) I. WS-I Basic Profile WSDLs of Event Source and Event Sink must be WS-I Basic Profile compliant. II. Event Sink Code Generation It must be possible for a developer of an Event Sink to generate code that dispatches and marshals Notifications using current WSDL-based tools. There are three sub-cases: A. Raw Notifications It must be possible for developers to do the above for Raw Notifications. B. Wrapped notifications It must be possible for developers to do the above for Wrapped Notifications. C. Extension Notifications It should be possible for developers to do the above for Notifications who's OTW (on-the-wire) shape has been changed by an extension to WS-Eventing (e.g. a new Format). Since the WG cannot know at this time what sorts of extensions may be invented, it is impossible to determine whether any solution can satisfy this requirement for all possible extensions. At the very least, no solution for this requirement should do anything to make it impossible to support extensions that change the shape of the OTW Notification. A non-functional requirement of this use case is that it should be "easy" to support the kinds of extensions that are currently envisioned (e.g. a "batched" format). III. Event Type Visibility A Subscriber can view metadata about the set of potential Events Types (including schemas) that may be emitted by an Event Source. A non-functional requirement is that it must be possible to screen this metadata based on authorization decisions about the identity of the Subscriber. IV. Event Type Completeness It must be possible for a service designer to take the metadata about the set of potential Event Types that may be emitted by an Event Source and implement the Event Sink. V. Non-Metadata Use Cases It must be possible to realize ALL USECASES without the use of metadata VI. Multiple Notification Variations It must be possible for a single Event Source to transmit multiple variations of Notifications (Raw, Wrapped, *) for the same Event Type. VII. Advertise Notification Variations It must be possible to provide a Subscriber with metadata that describes the variations of Notifications (e.g. supported formats) VIII. Deterministic WSDL It must be possible for a Subscriber to determine the WSDL that describes the interface that the Event Sink needs to implement based on the various parameters and extensions in the Subscribe request. IX. Extensibility of Message Exchange Patterns (MEPs) It should not prohibit extension of message exchange patterns to support a variety of event notifications that can fit into WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 framework, e.g. WS-Management specifies that a notification can be acknowledged, and ECMA CSTA requires that the Event Sink responds to the notification with certain type of messages. Global Non-Functional Requirements Any solution to the above use cases should satisfy the following non-functional requirements: A. Constrained Environments All use cases must have 'reasonable' solution for constrained environments. B. Known Technologies Any solution to the above use cases must limit inventions to applications of well known technologies (e.g. WSDL, WS-Policy, WS-MetadataExchange). C. Consistent with UDDI It must be possible for an Event Source and an Event Sink to publish and register their services through UDDI, so that they can be discovered and consumed through the existing web service infrastructure. D. Support Migration It should facilitate a migration path of eliminating the offending outbound operations in existing web service implementations. E. Support Composition It should facilitate easy compositions with other WS-* standards. ----------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 19:12:36 UTC