RE: my action re: CR044

Hi Charlton, I still find the text confusing, and I see that there is a
problem with phrasing the relationship between interface-less bindings
and the interfaces with which they are associated through an endpoint.

Here's my take (in the current editor's copy):

in 6.8.1 change "Interface Fault Reference" to "Binding Fault"

in 6.8.2, first bullet: change "Interface Message Reference and
Interface Fault Reference components of any Interface component that
uses this Binding component" to "Binding Message Reference and Binding
Fault components in this Binding component"

in 6.8.2, second bullet, drop "and Binding Fault" - binding faults don't
get transfer coding from defaults on operations that reference the
faults

in 6.8.2, third bullet, add "If this property does not have a value, the
value of the {http transfer coding default} property of the parent
Binding Operation component is used, and if that has no value, the value
from the Binding Operation component's parent Binding component is
used."

This possibly affects other {...default} properties, not sure, too
hurried to check. And finally, we should add somewhere a text about
interface-less bindings, how they should be interpreted at runtime as
though they did have the {interface} property with the right interface,
and all the appropriate {binding operation} components using all the
appropriate defaults.

Hope this helps,

Jacek

On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 03:13 +0100, Charlton Barreto wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> 
> On Friday, June 30, 2006, at 01:07AM, Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Maybe I've misunderstood what Jacek's point was, but I thought he was
> >pointing out that Interfaces don't have Bindings, and hence don't have
> >transfer codings. Thus we must rephrase in terms that do not talk of
> >transfer codings on Interfaces.
> 
> Agreed. As such, the language I've written below doesn't present Interfaces as having Bindings (and therefore Transfer Codings). Rather, it presents the binding rules (including matching the interface name associated with the Binding) where the Transfer Coding property values/defaults are applied. It is possible that the way it is written is confusing, so I have modified the language below as a clarification. 
> 
> >The Interface is connected to the Binding at the Endpoint, and therefore
> >it should be the Endpoint which is receiving the transfer coding.
> >Certainly, a Binding may be specific to an Interface, but that doesn't
> >attach the Binding to the Interface. Indeed, one might have multiple
> >Bindings which specify a given Interface. When a Binding specifies an
> >Interface, that means that it can only appear on Endpoints in a Service
> >which specifies that Interface (or, possibly, an Interface which extends
> >that Interface?).
> 
> Agreed. The language below (as clarified, please review :-)) implicitly states this point. My understanding is that the point is made as is (pursuant of language which explicity states the meaning of a Binding specifying an Interafce). 
> 
> However, if this is not clear enough as is, we may need to better elaborate this in these paragraphs. Please let me know what you think. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> -Charlton. 
> 
> >Or am I misunderstanding something?
> >
> >
> >Tony Rogers
> >tony.rogers@ca.com
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> >Behalf Of Charlton Barreto
> >Sent: Friday, 30 June 2006 3:03
> >To: Charlton Barreto
> >Cc: WS-Description WG
> >Subject: Re: my action re: CR044
> >
> >
> >Pursuant to our discussion on tonight's telecon re: CR044 and CR055, I
> >reviewed Jacek's clarification on HTTP Transfer Coding
> >(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jun/0032.html). I
> >have proceeded to update the references to the HTTP Transfer Coding as
> >mentioned in the CR044 proposed language. In addition, with this CR044
> >proposed language and my understanding of this clarification, I believe
> >we need an additional sentence to the proposed Binding Rules description
> >to capture this clarification (for the Binding component level {http
> >transfer coding default}; I see the clarification for the Binding
> >Operation component level {http transfer coding default} as implicit in
> >the below proposal). 
> >
> >As such I would like to propose the following updated text for the
> >proposed additional section <6.8.3 Binding Rules> as follows: 
> >
> ><For a given Interface component, if there is a Binding component a) whose
> >{interface} property matches the component in question, b) which defines a Binding
> >Fault and c) where that Binding Fault's {http transfer coding} property has a value,
> >then the HTTP Transfer Coding is the value of the {http transfer
> >coding} property. Otherwise, the HTTP Transfer Coding is the value of
> >the Binding component's {http transfer coding default}, if any. Note
> >that this {http transfer coding default} applies to the BindingFault and
> >BindingMessageReference components. 
> > 
> >For a given Interface Operation component, if there is a Binding
> >Operation component whose {interface operation} property matches the
> >component in question and its {http transfer coding} property has a
> >value, then the HTTP Transfer Coding is the value of the {http transfer
> >coding} property. Otherwise, the HTTP Transfer Coding is the value of
> >the Binding Operation component's {http transfer coding default}, if
> >any.>
> >
> >-Charlton.
> >
> >On Thursday, June 29, 2006, at 03:47PM, Charlton Barreto
> ><charlton_b@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Following on my initial assessment and working suggestions for CR044, I
> >have worked on some language which I believe will make implicit the use
> >of default properties to support interface-less bindings where the {http
> >transfer coding default} and {http query parameter separator default}
> >properties are described. 
> >>
> >>Add a section <6.7.2.3 Binding Rules> to section 6.7.2 Serialization as
> >"application/x-www-form-urlencoded" with the following:
> >> 
> >><For a given Interface Operation component, if there is a Binding 
> >>Operation component whose {interface operation} property matches the 
> >>component in question and its {http query parameter separator} property
> >
> >>has a value, then the Query Parameter Separator is the value of the 
> >>{http query parameter separator} property. Otherwise, the Query 
> >>Parameter Separator is the value of the Binding component's {http query
> >
> >>parameter separator default}.>
> >>
> >>Add a section <6.8.3 Binding Rules> to section 6.8 Specifying the
> >Transfer Coding with the following:
> >> 
> >><For a given Interface component, if there is a Binding component whose
> >{interface} property matches the component in question defines a Binding
> >Fault, and that Binding Fault's {http transfer coding} property has a
> >value, then the HTTP Transfer Coding for all Interface Message Reference
> >and Interface Fault Reference components of any Interface component
> >using this Binding component is the value of the {http transfer coding}
> >property. Otherwise, the HTTP Transfer Coding is the value of the
> >Binding component's {http transfer coding default}, if any.
> >> 
> >>For a given Interface Operation component, if there is a Binding 
> >>Operation component whose {interface operation} property matches the 
> >>component in question and its {http transfer coding} property has a 
> >>value, then the HTTP Transfer Coding for all Binding Message Reference 
> >>and Binding Fault components of this Binding Operation component is the
> >
> >>value of the {http transfer coding} property. Otherwise, the HTTP 
> >>Transfer Coding is the value of the Binding Operation component's {http
> >
> >>transfer coding default}, if any.>
> >> 
> >>By including this "Binding Rules" language where these properties
> >apply, I believe that the use of these properties is clearly elaborated
> >even if one doesn't follow the progression from the earlier language on
> >{soap mep default} and {http method default}. 
> >>
> >>Please review this and let me know if you have any feedback.
> >>
> >>-Charlton. 
> >>
> >> 
> >>On Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 05:00PM, Charlton Barreto
> ><charlton_b@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I accepted an action on last week's telecon to review the text
> >appropriate to CR044 in Part 2 to ensure that it adequately explained
> >the rationale for default properties in support of interface-less
> >bindings. 
> >>>
> >>>Per my review, the language presenting the use of default rules for
> >each binding (section 5 for SOAP 1.2 and 6 for HTTP), the elaboration on
> >binding rules for SOAP MEP Selection in section 5.10.3, and the
> >elaboration on binding rules for HTTP Method Selection in section 6.3.1,
> >in combination, clearly explain the use of default properties to support
> >interface-less bindings. I would recommend some wordsmithing in section
> >6.3.1 for additional clarity and smoother reading (changes in <>):
> >>>
> >>>"For a given Interface Operation component, if there is a Binding
> >Operation component whose {interface operation} property matches the
> >component in question and its {http method} property has a value, then
> ><the HTTP request method is> the value of the {http method} property."
> >>>"Otherwise, <the HTTP request method is> the value of the Binding
> >component's {http method default}, if any."
> >>>
> >>>Yet, the wording regarding the elaboration on the use of {http
> >transfer coding} and {http query parameter separator} could use some
> >additional clarification in my opinion - although one can logically
> >follow the progression from the previous elaboration on HTTP binding
> >rules, it may not be obvious enough. I will provide some proposed text
> >for this soon.
> >>>
> >>>-Charlton.
> >
> >--
> >charlton_b@mac.com
> >+1.650.222.6507 m
> >+1.415.692.5396 v
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> charlton_b@mac.com
> +1.650.222.6507 m
> +1.415.692.5396 v
> http://charltonb.typepad.com
>

Received on Thursday, 6 July 2006 15:07:27 UTC