Re: Some MTOM precisions

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>> 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/.
>
>   
I was not aware of this submission. Thanks for the link.

> Are you proposing that we expand our scope to include SwA
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments)?
>   
No.
I thought I heard this idea during last telcon, but it may just be my 
imagination.
In fact, I was thinking that if there was room to add support without 
any effort, it may be beneficial.
Obviously, additional effort would be needed to add Swa support.
    Youenn


> 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 15:57:39 UTC