W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2005

Re: EndpointRefs-47

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:51:46 -0500
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1129053106.28805.558.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 13:27 -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> I have written up a starting point for discussion of issue EPR-47.
>  
> In general, I do not believe that an EPR minter has a sufficient level
> of technology available to provide stateful resources on the Web. 
>  This note does not cover whether stateful resource modeling is
> desireable or not, which is the subject of a separate finding.   I
> have earlier written up some thoughts on a soap transfer binding at
> [1] and [2], a binding of WS-A Message Properties to HTTP at [3].
> 
>  
> 
> There are 3 key technical design decisions to integrating EPRs with
> the Web via HTTP GET:

I'm not able to follow at this rate. If somebody could start from
the beginning and tell a story that doesn't assume I know anything
about EPRs or WS-A, I'd appreciate it.

I heard something about a CNN example in today's teleconference
that I was starting to understand, but then the discussion didn't
persue it in concrete terms.

Henry refers to

http://example.com/fabrikam/acct?wsaw:InterfaceName=fabrikam:Inventor

which perhaps has a story around it, but I don't remember it.

> 1) MAP Binding: How are WS-Addressing Message Addressing
> Properties(MAPs), excluding Ref Params, bound to HTTP.   A trivial
> approach is that each WSA MAP is serialized as an HTTP Header with
> appropriate escaping.  One approach I mentioned is that a wsa:Action
> that has a "*:get" value is bound to HTTP GET.  Or a wsa:Action that
> has a "*:get*" value is bound to HTTP GET with the string after the
> get added to the URI, as in [3].
> 
>  
> 
> 2) RefParam Binding: How are EPR Reference Parameter(s) bound to an
> HTTP GET.  One option is that Reference Parameter(s) are applied to
> the URI, another option is they are serialized as HTTP Headers, and
> another is they are serialized in http cookie header.
> 
>  
> 
> 3) Binding description: How is the availability of the "WS-Addressing
> GET" binding described in WSDL.
> 
>  
> 
> Each of these aspects will be affected by the richness of the set of
> EPRs that are retrievable by GET.  For example, the binding of EPRs to
> GET could say that the Ref Param QName is bound to the URI as just the
> prefix:local name in the query, which is option 18 in [4].
> 
>  
> 
> In the complex matrix of choices, I tend to believe that the most
> desirable solution is to make the simplest cases simple and possible.
> There is the question of whether the complex cases, such as messages
> with ReplyTo and FaultTo and complex Ref Params, should also be made
> possible.  I proposed WS-Rest [5] to WS-RF last year, and wrote up
> [1].   There are 2 significant Web services specifications that use
> "generic" verbs to retrieve resource state, that is WS-RF [6] and
> WS-Transfer.  One possible success criteria for any solution is
> whether either of these specifications could be extended, say with a
> WSDL extension, that would indicate availability the resources using
> HTTP GET.
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave
> 
>  
> 
> [1]
> http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2005/03/01/wsrest_continued_do_we_need_an_http_transfer_soap_binding_and_simplified_wsdl
> 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ws-uri-05042002.html
> 
> [3]
> http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2004/12/20/ruminations_on_wsaddressing_and_transfer_protocols
> 
> [4]
> http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2004/04/29/binding_qnames_to_uris
> 
> [5] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200405/msg00018.html
> 
> [6] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsrf
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2005 17:52:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:09 UTC