Re: Clarification needed on HTTP Transfer Coding

Arthur, we discussed the issue on the call today and it seems that the
spec is not wrong on this particular point:

Among our components, it is message references and faults that specify
concrete data, and fault references only point to faults. Therefore
{http transfer coding} makes sense on BindingMessageReference and
BindingFault components, not on BindingFaultReference components.

Moving {http transfer coding} from binding fault to binding fault
reference would be adding a feature - the ability to specify different
transfer coding for one fault if used from different operations. I don't
think we need this. 8-)

I agree that the naming can be confusing. The problem is that
InterfaceMessageReference actually does refer to a message from the
applicable MEP and adds the data specification, and
InterfaceFaultReference refers to the fault from the MEP and instead of
adding the data specification directly, it points to an InterfaceFault
component that does that. We introduced this particular thing to allow
operations to share faults, fwiw.

Best regards,

Jacek

On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 21:36 -0400, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> 
> John, 
> 
> Yes, I think the spec is wrong. The transfer coding applies to
> concrete messages so it should be a property of Binding Message
> Reference and Binding Fault Reference which correspond to the <input>,
> <output>, <infault>, and <outfault> elements. The defaults should be
> properties of the higher level components Binding, Binding Fault, and
> Binding Operation. 
> 
> Arthur Ryman,
> IBM Software Group, Rational Division
> 
> blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca 
> 
> 
> "John Kaputin (gmail)"
> <jakaputin@gmail.com> 
> Sent by:
> www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> 
> 05/30/2006 05:47 AM 
> 
> 
>                To
> Arthur
> Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA 
>                cc
> "John Kaputin"
> <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>, woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
>           Subject
> Re: Clarification
> needed on HTTP
> Transfer Coding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arthur,
> you wrote:
> 
> 3.2 For Binding Fault Reference, the value  is equal to the
> whttp:transferCoding attribute if present, 
>        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the
> associated Binding Fault component if present
>        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the parent
> Binding Operation, if present 
>        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the
> grandparent Binding, if present 
>        else the property if absent
> 
> In the current editor's copy {http transfer coding} is not an
> extension property of the BindingFaultReference component and the
> whttp:transferCoding attribute is not defined for the wsdl:infault and
> wsdl:outfault elements of the wsdl:binding. I assume you are proposing
> that {http transfer coding} should be defined for
> BindingFaultReference (i.e. given that {http transfer coding default}
> is defined for BindingFault). Correct?
> 
> regards,
> John Kaputin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/29/06, Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote: 
> 
> John, 
> 
> I'm not an author of that part of the spec, but I agree with you that
> it looks wrong. Here is my attempt at a sensible interpretation:
> 
> 1. The {http transfer coding default} property should be an OPTIONAL
> property of the Binding, Binding Fault, and Binding Operation
> components. If present, this value provides a default for the {http
> transfer coding} of related Binding Message Reference and Binding
> Fault Reference components as described below. 
> 
> 2. The {http transfer coding} property should be an OPTIONAL property
> of Binding Message Reference and Binding Fault Reference. If absent,
> then no transfer coding is used for the associated message (normal or
> fault).
> 
> 3. The value of {http transfer coding} is determined as follows:
> 
> 3.1 For Binding Message Reference, the value is equal to the
> whttp:transferCoding attribute if present, 
>        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the parent
> Binding Operation, if present 
>        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the
> grandparent Binding, if present 
>        else the property if absent
> 
> 3.2 For Binding Fault Reference, the value  is equal to the
> whttp:transferCoding attribute if present, 
>        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the
> associated Binding Fault component if present
>        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the parent
> Binding Operation, if present 
>        else the {http transfer coding default} property of the
> grandparent Binding, if present 
>        else the property if absent
> 
> Arthur Ryman,
> IBM Software Group, Rational Division
> 
> blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
> 
> "John Kaputin (gmail)"
> <jakaputin@gmail.com> 
> Sent by:
> www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> 
> 05/26/2006 08:12 AM 
> 
> 
> 
>                To
> www-ws-desc@w3.org 
>                cc
> woden-dev@ws.apache.org, "John Kaputin" <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com> 
>           Subject
> Clarification
> needed on HTTP
> Transfer Coding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone please clarify some points about the http transer coding
> extension properties defined in Part 2 section 6.8.2 Relationship to
> WSDL Component Model [1]?
> 
> It says the Binding has a {http transfer coding default} property that
> is available to InterfaceMessageReference and InterfaceFaultReference
> components. Is this worded correctly? Do components from the abstract
> interface need http binding information?
> 
> It also says BindingOperation has a {http transfer coding default}
> property that is available to BindingMessageReference and BindingFault
> components. Is 'BindingFault' a mistake, should this say
> BindingFaultReference?
> 
> There are no semantic rules about the relationship between the two
> {http transfer coding default}  properties (i.e. in Binding and
> BindingOperation), so they could potentially be different. I don't
> think this would make sense, but it seems to be possible according to
> the way this section is described.
> 
> Finally, there are no semantic rules about the relationship between
> BindingOperation's {http transfer coding default} property and the
> {http transfer coding} properties if its two child components. As an
> implementor I can infer what that relationship might be, but it would
> be better if the spec stated in explicitly as it does for default and
> actual extension properties elsewhere.
> 
> [1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#http-transfer-coding-relate
> 
> regards,
> John Kaputin.  
>

Received on Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:30:08 UTC