RE: issue 6432 - yet another proposal

I am afraid that we do not understand how WS-Eventing composes with WS-MakeConnection. Is this a push mode or a pull mode? Has anyone implemented WS-Eventing and WS-MakeConnection combo?

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 Doug Davis
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 9:45 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: issue 6432 - yet another proposal


(resending since I think the first one was rejected due to the attachment)

I was re-reading Bob's comments [1] and I think I might have been reading too much into the existing wording as well.  Even if people use MC the messages are still sent asynchronously and unsolicited (whatever those terms may mean).  MC doesn't change that - it just changes how the connection is established.  With that in mind, I don't think we need to really modify the definition of Push mode (other than to make it clear that the sink is identified by an EPR).  However, I think it would be wise to rethink the name of "Push" mode.  Assuming for the moment that we do keep the Mode attribute, "Push" mode is really misnamed since its not really about Push vs Pull, its really just about using an EPR to identify the Sink - what people choose to put in that EPR is up to them.  With that in mind I've attached another proposal that does two things:
1 - renames "Push Mode" to "EPR Mode" - which more accurately reflects what we're doing from a SOAP perspective
2 - adds the minor hint of using MC for non-addressable endpoints from the previous proposal - which is what this issue is really about

I think this keeps the wording that Wu was looking for, but aligns WS-Eventing with how all other WS-* specs use EPRs.  And is 100% backwards compatible - no coding changes are needed for existing implementations. We can then, separately, discuss whether or not we want to explicitly support the notion of non-EPR-based delivery modes in Dave's issue [2].  Not to mix topics but I will point out that in Wu's issue 6425 [3] we agreed to mandate that the Event Source be identified by an EPR.

Proposal:  http://www.soaphub.org/public/files/w3c/wseventing-6432-v1.html

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0122.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6692
[3] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6425

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