- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:15:55 +0200
- To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20040607141555.GI14127@w3.org>
Hi Marc. * Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM> [2004-06-04 16:03-0400] > On a related note I'm unclear on the semantics implied by marking the > MTOM/XOP feature as optional. I can see several interpretations: > > (i) a service will never use it but a client may > (ii) a service will not use it unless client does first > (iii) a service will always use it but a client isn't obliged to Section 2.7.1[1] specifies: | The presence of a feature component in a WSDL description indicates | that the service supports the feature and may require a requester | agent that interacts with the service to use that feature. When the use of the MTOM feature is not required, it just means that the service supports it, which means that the requester agent or the provider agent may use it, depending on the direction of the message Your interpretations can be described with: (i) the input message description has an optional MTOM feature component associated with it, and the output message doesn't. (iii) the input message description has an optional MTOM feature component associated with it, and the output message has a required MTOM feature component associated with it. If an optional MTOM feature were specified on an operation, both the requester and provider agent may use it. I don't believe that (ii) is describable with WSDL 2.0. It goes into the domain of policies, I think. Regards, Hugo 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040326/#Feature_details -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Monday, 7 June 2004 10:15:56 UTC