- From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:50:15 -0700
- To: "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
> The same extension element could be used for both MTOM and SWA, the > switch being based on the soap version in use. I don't think that would sufficiently disambiguate the cases, given the existence of http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-soap11mtom10-20060405/. Are you proposing that we expand our scope to include SwA (http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments)? Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Youenn Fablet > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:13 AM > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Cc: Jean-Jacques Moreau > Subject: Some MTOM precisions > > > Following on last telcon's discussions, here are some potential > enhancements to the proposal, related to engagement requiredness and > optionality. > These precisions may be suited for a primer or something like that. > For input messages and input faults > - required means that MTOM must be supported and should be > engaged by the client. > Typically, when there is no binary data in a message, > MTOM is not needed. > - optional means that MTOM may be engaged by the client and is > supported by the service > For output messages and output faults > - required means that MTOM must be supported by the client > Engagement is based on the message content-type as per > the MTOM specification. > - optional means that MTOM is supported and may be engaged by > the service. > Engagement must only be done when the service knows that > the client supports MTOM. > This knowledge may come from different sources: MTOM use > in the input message, policy exchanges, content negociation (HTTP Accept > header for instance)... > By default, MTOM is not engaged. > > There were also some discussions whether to use @wsdl:required to mark > optionality/requiredness of the extension. > While I do not recall the exact reasons for not reusing it, I would note > that the WS-Addr UsingAddressing extension use @wsdl:required with the > exact same intention. > > Finally, I know that SWA can be described by WSDL1.1, but I do not think > it can be described by WSDL2.0. > The same extension element could be used for both MTOM and SWA, the > switch being based on the soap version in use. > In such a case, we should define a specific uri for the extension > element and not directly reuse the MTOM URI. > > I hope this helps. > Regards, > Youenn
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 14:50:21 UTC