W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > October 2006

Re: Some MTOM precisions

From: Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:11:10 +0200
To: Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Message-id: <4536521E.50209@crf.canon.fr>
To put forward the proposal, here is the proposal reformated as a 
"specification-like" web page.
I hope this file will help speed up discussions on this proposal.
I do not know yet whether I will be able to join the call tomorrow.

Youenn Fablet wrote:
> 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 Wednesday, 18 October 2006 16:12:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:07:02 UTC