RE: [wsrf] Issue 30 resolution text question

[Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>]

I don;t think the specs use xxxRequest
and xxxResponse.  they used to.  now they use XXX and XXXResponse
(no longer use the Request suffix).

sgg

++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++

Tom Maguire/Hawthorne/IBM@IBMUS

11/10/2004 09:34 AM

To	Tim Banks <tim_banks@uk.ibm.com>
cc	"Murray, Bryan P." <bryan.murray@hp.com>, "Srinivasan, Latha" <latha.srinivasan@hp.com>, wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	RE: [wsrf] Issue 30 resolution text question

Tim, good catch, and yes I believe that all of the specs use xxxRequest
and
xxxResponse for the input and output names.

Tom

Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created
them.  —Albert Einstein
T o m   M a g u i r e

STSM, On Demand Architecture
Poughkeepsie, NY  12601


                    
                     
                     
          
             Tim Banks      
                     
                     
  
             <tim_banks@uk.ibm  
                     
                    
             .com>      
                     
                     
   To 
                    
                  "Murray,
Bryan P."                
 
             11/10/2004 07:44    
     <bryan.murray@hp.com>        
      
             AM        
                     
                     
    cc 
                    
                  "Srinivasan,
Latha"                 
                    
                  <latha.srinivasan@hp.com>,
Tom      
                    
                  Maguire/Hawthorne/IBM@IBMUS,
       
                    
                  <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>
        
                    
                     
                     
  Subject 
                    
                  RE: [wsrf]
Issue 30 resolution text 
                    
                  question
                     
     
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          








I agree we should have mechanical mappings, but I propose we use the recipe
already described in section 3.3.2 of WS-Addressing, namely

[target namespace]/[port type name]/[input|output name]

Of course, we are using the namespace and portType name to indicate the
base portType, and not whatever is derived from it by aggregation.

So Latha would use:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/2004/11/wsrf-WS-ResourceLifetime-1.2-draft-04.wsdl/

ImmediateResourceTermination/DestroyRequest

for the input to the destroy operation.

The relationship of the message name attribute to the operation is a
separate issue, I think, though a  convention for this is useful.
However,
the specs already seem to use Request and Response suffixes, yes?


Regards, Tim Banks
IBM TP Architecture & Technology. Hursley, UK.
Phone: External +44 1962 815639, Internal 245639

"Murray, Bryan P." <bryan.murray@hp.com> wrote on 09/11/2004
20:07:32:

> Since Tom and Latha are using different mappings to create the
> SOAPAction, I would like to propose one that all specs use.
>
> The SOAPAction URI is created by:
>    <WSDL namespace> + '/' + <WSDL message name>
>
> Latha would use:
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/2004/11/wsrf-WS-ResourceLifetime-1.
> 2-draft-04.wsdl/Destroy
>
> Tom would use:
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/2004/11/wsrf-WS-ServiceGroup-1.2-
> draft-03.wsdl/Add
>
> Using this method, the mapping is purely mechanical.
>
> One more issue related to SOAPAction and wsa:Action is that wsa:
> Action has a different value for every message. In order to address
> this issue, I think we need to list 2 values for SOAPAction for
> every request-response message exchange. I recommend that the WSDL
> message elements be named <operation> and <operation>Response,
where
> "<operation>" is replaced with the name of the WSDL
operation. In
> order to assure the mechanical mapping to SOAPAction, we should make
> sure to name our request messages <operation> and our response
> messages <operation>Response.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srinivasan, Latha
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:35 AM
> To: 'Tom Maguire'; wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com
> Subject: RE: [wsrf] Issue 30 resolution text question
>
> I interpreted the Issue Resolution to be whatever is going to be in
> the "Action" part of the SOAP header. So, in my case, for
the
> "Destroy" message, my normative text would be:
>
>
> "If a SOAPAction URI is included in the transport portion of
the
> message, it MUST contain the URI:
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/2004/11/wsrf-WS-ResourceLifetime/Destroy"
>
> I would like to be consistent with the other specs. in resolving this
issue.
> -Latha
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Maguire [mailto:tmaguire@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 2:22 PM
> To: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com
> Subject: [wsrf] Issue 30 resolution text question
>
>
>
>
>
> Quick question.  Issue 30 leaves the structure of the URI open
to the
> editor.  Do we want to have the URI match the specification versioning
> structure?  For example in WS-ServiceGroup for the Add operation:
>
>    If a SOAPAction URI is included in the transport portion
of the Add
>    message, it MUST contain the URI
>
>
http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/2004/11/wsrf-WS-ServiceGroup-1.2-draft-03/
>    Add.
>
>
> Tom
>
> Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created
them.
> -Albert Einstein T o m   M a g u i r e STSM, On Demand Architecture
>
>
> Poughkeepsie, NY  12601
>
>