RE: Generic proposal for enganging MTOM in WSDL 2.0

Hi Jonathan,

> The risk I saw is that you can't take an off-the-shelf WSDL with embedded
> policy and simply add the new annotation and expect it to work with Canon's
> implementation.  You'd have to do a fairly severe restructuring, losing the
> maintainability provided by the indirection.

I don't think that's the user story ..

> If that's not the goal, and one would instead be taking an off-the-shelf
> WSDL with MTOM extension and adding WS-Policy, 

.. I didn't think so ..

> or crafting a WSDL from
> scratch that would work with both, 
> then this proposal makes more sense.

.. yes, that's the use-case I'm thinking of.

Maybe we can hear from Canon 
given it's them we're trying to help.

> It is unfortunate that there will be two ways to express an extension - 
>   <my:extension/>
> and
>  <foobar wsdli:simpleAssertions="true">
>    <my:extension/>
>  </foobar>
>
> Are there any ambiguities with this?  Namely, what if I understand both
> <foobar> and <my:extension>.  Does the processing of wsdli:simpleAssertions
> turn off the "understanding" of foobar?  Another way to ask this is - what
> does the component model look like?  Both from a foobar aware processor and
> a my:extension processor.

I'd imagine that's precisely the same as saying:

  <my:extension value="on">
  <my:extension value="off">
  <my:extension>
  ...

or even:

  <ex:useTheForce>
  <wsp11:Policy>
     <ex:useTheForce/>
  </wsp11:Policy>
  <wsp15:policy>
     <ex:useTheForce/>
  </wsp15:Policy>

If you are going to say something twice
make sure it's the same thing, otherwise you need 
some context dependent rules, and of course Policy is
pretty good for composition.

So I don't think WSDL 2.0 needs to say anything new here.

Paul

Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 11:48:30 UTC