RE: Decisions to-date for Issue 6692

"Mode attribute is removed

replaced with a collection of QNames" [1] :-)



[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6692#c6



Regards,



Asir S Vedamuthu

Microsoft Corporation

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gilbert Pilz
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:32 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Re: Decisions to-date for Issue 6692

It's simple logic; If there is no "Mode" how can there be a "Push" variant of it?

- gp

On 6/30/2009 9:07 AM, Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
>From the HTML doc, we cannot figure out who added, subtracted or edited what section or sentence. Perhaps, yours is a new write-up.

Anyway, we have not fully reviewed your new write-up. Bob documented the directional resolution for issue 6692 in the bug. The bug says that 'Agreed that the notion of delivery will be maintained'. And, we are not aware of any WG decisions to drop the 'Push Mode' :-)

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:41 AM
To: Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>; Yves Lafon
Subject: RE: Decisions to-date for Issue 6692


Asir,
  the html file I posted has change marks/bars.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com<mailto:dug@us.ibm.com>
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.


Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com><mailto:asirveda@microsoft.com>

06/30/2009 11:39 AM

To

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org><mailto:ylafon@w3.org>

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: Decisions to-date for Issue 6692







We are NOT able to figure out the diff between Geoff's and Doug's written proposals. May we request you to post a diff?

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation

From: 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: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:50 AM
To: Yves Lafon
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Decisions to-date for Issue 6692


Yves - thanks and sorry I keep forgetting about the size limit.
I uploaded the file here: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/9/06/wseventing-DeliveryElement.html

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com<mailto:dug@us.ibm.com>
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org><mailto:ylafon@w3.org>

06/30/2009 08:43 AM


To

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

cc

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

Subject

Re: Decisions to-date for Issue 6692











On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Doug Davis wrote:

[resent with a compressed version of the attachment]

> Geoff,
>  I think this write-up goes beyond what we agreed to at the f2f.  I seem
> to recall that we agreed to remove the "mode" attribute but keep the
> "Delivery" element as a wrapper for extensions related to the conveyance
> of Notifications.  In particular, here are some of things that I noticed
> that seemed to go beyond that:
> - introduction of a "delivery pattern" concept
> - the notion of a "Push pattern" - since we didn't agree to a new
> "delivery pattern" concept, we didn't agree to a "Push pattern"
> - the EndTo element appears to have moved in your proposal - just in the
> pseudo schema
> - Most of the text you put under "Delivery" is redundant with the
> extensibility model we already have described in section 3.2.
> - Also, text like "Two extension elements are equivalent if and only if
> they have the same root QName." is not something we discussed and is not
> correct.  Only the spec that defines the extension could make this claim
> since its possible that attributes or children elements need to be
> examined to determine equivalence.  I'm having horrible flashback to "EPR
> comparison" discussions  :-)
>
> I've attached a new version that I think limits itself to just what we
> agreed to.  From a coding perspective its the same thing as what you have
> - it just doesn't introduce concepts that we didn't agree to and as a
> result I think its easier to digest.
>
> btw - something I think the group should think about are examples.  Given
> we have 3 extensibility points (Subscribe, Delivery, NotifyTo) we should
> probably show at least one example of what kind of extension would go into
> each and how it will look.  Without this guidance I suspect a lot of
> confusion and interop issues.
>
>
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> ______________________________________________________
> STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com<mailto:dug@us.ibm.com>
> The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
>
>
>
> 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>
> 06/25/2009 06:56 PM
>
> To
> "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>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Decisions to-date for Issue 6692
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
> This email is in response to my action item 70 to write up our ?decisions
> to-date? as far as Issue 6692 is concerned.
> We made good progress at the recent F2F, which is captured in the attached
> doc.
> I also received some great feedback last week, which is incorporated as
> well.
>
> Major decisions made:
> ·        Retaining the delivery element
> ·        Getting rid of the mode attribute and replacing it with a series
> of composable options
> ·        The initial suggestion was to use qnames to represent those
> options
>
> There still seems to be a few discussion points remaining.  These include:
> ·        Using qnames or potentially using policy statements inside of the
> delivery element
> ·        Should subscription response return indications about the
> subscription?
> ·        What should various faults return?
>
> --Geoff
> [attachment "WS-Eventing-6692-8.docx" deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]
>

--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

       ~~Yves[attachment "wseventing-DeliveryElement.html.bz2" deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]