- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:33:48 -0400
- To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Cc: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org, "Youenn Fablet" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
- Message-ID: <OFEA7CF8C8.9696FCAC-ON85257205.004938C7-85257205.004A810C@ca.ibm.com>
Umit, Since MTOM uses the media type application/xop+xml, this sounds like a good use case for HTTP content negotiation as Youenn observed. The client SHOULD use an HTTP Accept header to say that it prefers MTOM. The SOAP Binding does allow the {http headers} property when the underlying transport is HTTP. That leaves other transports, which we don't really describe in Part 2 anyway. Someone would have to define an extension for another transport and say how content negotiation worked. 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 "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 10/11/2006 11:13 AM To Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com> 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 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://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://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 Thursday, 12 October 2006 13:34:08 UTC