Re: [SPAM] RE: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal

To further refine your statement:
    - when set to optional, it makes sense to put the optimization at 
the wider level, i.e. the endpoint or binding.
    - when set to required, it makes sense to put the optimization at 
the narrower level, i.e. the message level. Note that there are cases 
(for instance a binding engaging XML Security) where required MTOM 
engagement at a wider scope makes also perfect sense.
This usage may be illustrated in the primer.
    Youenn


Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> What you're really saying I think is that the optimization ought be 
> set at the individual message level rather that at the operation level?
>
> Can we do this already with the spec at it stands? I suggest keep the 
> proposal aligned with the status quo, whatever it is, in the interest 
> of moving to Rec sooner.
>
> JJ.
>
> Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
>> Is this assumption adequate though?What if the capability is present 
>> but the sending message did not need to utilize the optimization? 
>> Think of a request-response and the response would be returning a 
>> .GIF file. Would you engage the optimization in the request? I would 
>> think not, but you may expect the response to be optimized.
>> --umit
>>
>>     
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     *From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>>     [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Arthur Ryman
>>     *Sent:* Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006 3:07 PM
>>     *To:* Jonathan Marsh
>>     *Cc:* 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; www-ws-desc@w3.org; 'Youenn Fablet'
>>     *Subject:* RE: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal
>>
>>
>>     Jonathan,
>>
>>     That isn't defined as far as I can tell. A "polite" server would
>>     respond in the same format as the request.
>>
>>     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
>>
>>
>>     *"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com>*
>>
>>     10/10/2006 06:04 PM
>>
>>        
>>     To
>>         Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>>     cc
>>         "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>,
>>     <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
>>     Subject
>>         RE: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal
>>
>>
>>
>>        
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     I don’t think you answered my second, more specific, question. I
>>     would expect either encoding to be accepted, but what is
>>     generated? Always text/xml? Always XOP? Sometimes one and
>>     sometimes the other? Based on the received message? Or on the
>>     phase of moon?
>>
>>     *Jonathan Marsh* - _http://www.wso2.com_ <http://www.wso2.com/> -
>>     _http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com_
>>     <http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com/>
>>
>>     
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     *From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>>     [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Arthur Ryman*
>>     Sent:* Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:42 PM*
>>     To:* Jonathan Marsh*
>>     Cc:* 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; www-ws-desc@w3.org;
>>     www-ws-desc-request@w3.org; 'Youenn Fablet'*
>>     Subject:* RE: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal
>>
>>
>>     Jonathan,
>>
>>     My reading of the text is that if MTOM is required then an
>>     otherwise encoded message would be rejected. If it is optional,
>>     then both MTOM and normal XML hexBinary or base64Binary encoding
>>     are fine.
>>
>>     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
>>
>>     *"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com>*
>>     Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>>
>>     10/10/2006 04:04 PM
>>
>>        
>>     To
>>         Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "'Youenn Fablet'"
>>     <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
>>     cc
>>         "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>,
>>     <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>>     Subject
>>         RE: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal
>>
>>
>>
>>        
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     I assume {optimizedMimeSeraizliation} = required means the service
>>     will reject any message not XOP-encoded, and will only emit
>>     messages in XOP-encoding.
>>
>>     But what does “may be engaged” mean? When I send a message with
>>     text/xml when {optimizedMimeSerialization} = optional, what media
>>     type should I expect to get back?
>>     *
>>     Jonathan Marsh* - _http://www.wso2.com_ <http://www.wso2.com/> -
>>     _http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com_
>>     <http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     *
>>     From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>>     [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Arthur Ryman*
>>     Sent:* Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:02 AM*
>>     To:* Youenn Fablet*
>>     Cc:* Jean-Jacques Moreau; www-ws-desc@w3.org;
>>     www-ws-desc-request@w3.org*
>>     Subject:* Re: F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal
>>
>>
>>     Youenn,
>>
>>     Looks good.
>>
>>     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
>>
>>     *Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>*
>>     Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>>
>>     10/10/2006 05:50 AM
>>
>>        
>>
>>
>>     To
>>         www-ws-desc@w3.org
>>     cc
>>         Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
>>     Subject
>>         F&P/MTOM Alternate proposal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>        
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Per my action item, here is an alternative proposal for MTOM support
>>     within WSDL2.0.
>>     This is a translation of the current MTOM support through an
>>     extension
>>     element.
>>     Regards,
>>     Youenn
>>     -----------------------------
>>     The proposal is the following:
>>
>>     Add a new WSDL2.0/MTOM extension within section 5 (soap binding)
>>     of the
>>     WSDL20 adjunct specification, along the following lines.
>>
>>     //// WSDL Component Relationship /////
>>     The WSDL2.0/MTOM extension adds the following property to the 
>> WSDL2.0
>>     Endpoint, Binding, Binding Operation, Binding Fault, Binding Message
>>     Reference and Binding Fault Reference components:
>>     - {optimizedMimeSerialization} OPTIONAL. Its type is xs:token. When
>>     present and equal to "required", it indicates that MTOM must be
>>     engaged. When present and equal to "optional", it indicates that 
>> MTOM
>>     may be engaged. When not present, no assertion is made about the
>>     use of
>>     MTOM.
>>
>>     The requiredness/availability of the MTOM engagement is defined by
>>     the
>>     closest present property, where closeness is defined by whether it
>>     is at
>>     the Endpoint component level, the Binding Message Reference
>>     component or
>>     Binding Fault Reference component level, the Binding Operation 
>> level,
>>     the Binding Fault Reference level, or the Binding component level,
>>     respectively.
>>
>>
>>     //// XML Representation ////
>>     The XML representation for the WSDL2.0/MTOM extension is an element
>>     information item as follow:
>>     <wsmtom:OptimizedMimeSerialization wsdl:required="true|false"?
>>
>>     
>> xmlns:wsmtom="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/soap/features/http-optimization"/> 
>>
>>     This is an empty global element that allows any namespaced attribute
>>     (especially the wsdl:required attribute).
>>
>>     //// Mapping ////
>>     The {optimizedMimeSerialization} property is present when a
>>     wsmtom:OptimizedMimeSerialization element is present.
>>     Its value is "required" if the wsdl:required attribute is present 
>> and
>>     equals to "true". Otherwise its value is "optional".
>>     -----------------------------
>>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 15:57:00 UTC