Re: [Bug 6401] Draft proposal of issue 6401

yep - I knew you would be one of the ones that would disagree :-)
That's why I'd like to walk through some examples to see how things would 
look in practice.  I think having some concrete examples will either show 
that I'm worrying too much and it'll be ok to have (# of Formats) x (# of 
events) artifacts in the metadata, or it'll show that I'm right and 
perhaps there needs to be a better way to express it.   I'm just unclear 
on this one right now.

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.



Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
05/12/2009 12:48 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject
Re: [Bug 6401] Draft proposal of issue 6401






Doug,

I've never like the idea of WSDL+Format ==> implied wire message. One of 
the goals of the original proposal was to leverage existing WSDL tools to 
allow Event Sinks to generate service stubs for Notification messages. I 
know of no existing tool that is capable of consuming a WSDL and factoring 
in something like "wrapped format" to generate the correct service stubs.

- gp

On 5/12/2009 6:30 AM, Doug Davis wrote: 

Wu, 
  would it be possible for you to produce some sample WSDL (and/or policy 
if necessary) to show what the metadata would look like when events are 
wrapped?  Its never been quite clear to me whether or not the formatting 
information appears in the metadata that describes the events.  For 
example, let's say there are 5 different Format URIs that an event source 
supports - would the metadata (wsdl?) need to include all 5 variants for 
all events that are generated? That seems like a lot of metadata.  Or 
would the metadata just include the base (raw) version and the definition 
of the 4 other Format URIs _imply_ what the XML on the wire would look 
like? I've always thought it was the latter (easier for my simple head to 
process :-), but I'm pretty sure not everyone would agree.  I think having 
some concrete examples to look at would help the decision making process. 

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. 


"Chou, Wu (Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
05/05/2009 05:30 PM 


To
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, <member-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 
cc
"Gilbert Pilz" <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>, "Geoff Bullen" 
<Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>, "Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com> 
Subject
Re: [Bug 6401] Draft proposal of issue 6401








Here is our concrete proposal of issue 6401 that was submitted to 6401 
Task team on 05/04/09. 
  
It is based on Gil's original proposal with amendments. An overview page 
is provided to illustrate the approach. 
  
This proposal should be treated as work in progress. 
Comments/suggestions/contributions are welcome and appreciated. 
  
Regards, 
  
- Wu Chou/Li Li 
  
Avaya Labs Research   [attachment "6401_proposal_v0.5.pdf" deleted by Doug 
Davis/Raleigh/IBM]