- 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
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