[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrf] ISSUE: Should resource lifetime require WS-Resource.
I guess there is no hard architectural reason to limit this to a WS-Resource. But the intent was clearly to destroy the specific instance of the stateful entity represented by the WS-Resource. I find it confusing to destroy a "stateless" web service, although as you point out it might simply mean that the service stop accepting requests. I assume this would render a deployed "stateless" web useless. I guess I do not like the application of this semantic to non WS-Resources. This was about instance lifecycle. And to be precise, we don't send things to an EPR. We send messages to a web service addressed by one or more EPRs. The operational state of the WS-Resource/Web service being destroyed is the issue at hand here, regardless of which of the many possible EPRs may have been used to address it. Jeffrey Frey IBM Distinguished Engineer OnDemand System Architecture and Design Phone: 845-435-3067 Tie: 8-295-3067 Cell: 914-456-6556 Notes: Jeffrey Frey/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS Internet: jafrey@us.ibm.com "Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca To .com> Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <meder@mcs.anl.gov> 11/01/2004 12:28 cc PM "wsrf-oasis" <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject RE: [wsrf] ISSUE: Should resource lifetime require WS-Resource. The WS-Resource is destroyed. That is, don't send nothing to its EPR no more -- there is nobody there. I think that this is more obvious semantics than destruction of a "stateful resource component of the WS-Resource" which, by the way, has never been normatively defined anywhere else. -- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com) -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11749 From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 8:37 AM To: meder@mcs.anl.gov Cc: wsrf-oasis Subject: Re: [wsrf] ISSUE: Should resource lifetime require WS-Resource. Sam: This is a good question. Now, what is the semantic of Destroy() if no WS-Resource is assumed. Currently, the text from WSRF-RL version 1.2 draft 03 reads: 224 If the WS-Resource accepts the Destroy request message, upon receipt of this message the WS- 225 Resource MUST either (1) destroy the implied stateful resource component of the WS-Resource 226 and return the following DestroyResponse message to acknowledge successful destruction, or 227 (2) return a fault message indicating failure. Note that the destruction of the stateful resource 228 component of the WS-Resource effectively destroys the WS-Resource. So, if we allow the case where the Destroy is sent to something other than a WS-Resource, what is the semantic? Ie what can the requestor imagine is destroyed in successful response to the request? sgg ++++++++ Steve Graham (919)254-0615 (T/L 444) STSM, On Demand Architecture Member, IBM Academy of Technology <Soli Deo Gloria/> ++++++++ Samuel Meder <meder@mcs.anl.gov> To 10/29/2004 09:41 PM wsrf-oasis <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org> cc Please respond to meder Subject [wsrf] ISSUE: Should resource lifetime require WS-Resource. Specifically should the destroy operation require that the Web Service implementing it is also a WS-Resource. /Sam
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]