RE: [ws-caf] [Bug 140] New: content (URL) dereference needs explaining (or removing)

["Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>]

of course, another approach would be to remove the ContextManager
service and use ONLY
the http get, put. Since more of the http infrastructure is deployed,
that might be better.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bugzilla-daemon@arjuna.com [mailto:bugzilla-daemon@arjuna.com] 
> Sent: 30 June 2004 13:31
> To: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-caf] [Bug 140] New: content (URL) dereference 
> needs explaining (or removing)
> 
> 
> http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=140
> 
>            Summary: content (URL) dereference needs 
> explaining (or removing)
>            Product: WS-Context
>            Version: 1.0
>           Platform: PC
>         OS/Version: Windows 2000
>             Status: NEW
>           Severity: normal
>           Priority: P2
>          Component: Text and diagrams
>         AssignedTo: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
>         ReportedBy: peter.furniss@choreology.com
>          QAContact: mark.little@arjuna.com
> 
> 
> 0.3 offers alternative ways of dereferencing a 
> context-by-reference : the 
> ContextManager service described in section 3, or a "URL that 
> may be dereferenced to resolve the data directly"
> 
> Presumably this will usually (always ?) be an http or https url. Some 
> unanswered questions are:
> 
> 1. is the context identifier involved in the dereference ? If 
> so, how ? 
> Presumably not, in which case the content uri must itself be 
> an unambiguous 
> identifer for the context. Should this be pointed out. Should 
> there be a short 
> form, meaning "use the context identifier for this" ? (it 
> would be a mistake to 
> force the ctx identifier to be usable as the "content URI")
> 
> 2. What is the type of the reply ?  Are there constraints on 
> the mime type (it 
> should say even (or especially) if this is obvious)
> 
> 3. ContextManager getContents has various fault replies. 
> Shouldn't the 
> specification state exactly which http responses are equivalent.
> 
> 4. ContextManager has both getContents and putContents. Can a 
> content URI be used to PUT a replacement contents in the same 
> way (and subject to similar 
> security, concurrency considerations if necessary)
> 
> 5. Is it really desirable to have two ways of doing the same thing ?
> 
> 6. Are referencing specifications expected/allowed to 
> constrain to use only one 
> form ?
> 
> 
> 
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
>