[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#178] The Consumer SHOULD NOT use a MODE notspecified in meta- data
Roughly you are arguing that Producers should be checking for inappropriate behaviour on the part of the Consumer anyway and therefore why make this a conformance issue. I think the spec should define a minimum conformance level so that the normal is valid interactions rather than discovering invalid interactions by catching exceptions. Rich Thompson Interaction Middleware and Standards for Portal Server IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Yorktown Heights, NY (914) 945-3225 richt2@us.ibm.com Eilon Reshef <eilon.reshef@webc To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org ollage.com> cc: Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#178] The Consumer SHOULD NOT use a MODE not 12/11/2002 09:39 specified in meta- data PM I am uncertain about this despite having raised the issue, but it seems to me that there's intrinsic benefit to letting the protocol be robust with respect to all the discovery-related operations. That is, even if the Consumer never calls getDescription. For example, a dumb Consumer that always assumes that there are two modes: view and edit. This is not to say that the Producer should be required to provide meaningful behavior. To the contrary, it should probably throw an exception. (I am sure most Producers will do this check anyway.) It is just to say that there seems to be value in allowing graceful and robust behavior for such dumb Consumers. -----Original Message----- From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 2:21 PM To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [wsrp-wsia] [I#178] The Consumer SHOULD NOT use a MODE not specified in meta- data The alternative suggestion is the intent currently (at least for me ...), I think it is important to not weaken the statement about what mode a Consumer is allowed to set (i.e. must be one the entity said it supports in its metadata) so that entity will know what to do. This does not imply a requirement that the Consumer check that the mode is still supported at the point of usage. Rich Thompson Gil Tayar <Gil.Tayar@webcol To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org lage.com> cc: Subject: [wsrp-wsia] [I#178] The Consumer SHOULD NOT use a MODE not 12/10/2002 03:18 specified in meta- data AM Issue: 178 Status: Active Topic: interface Class: Minor_Technical Raised by: Eilon Reshef Title: The Consumer SHOULD NOT use a MODE not specified in meta-data Date Added: 10-Dec-2002 Document Section: v0.85/5.1.6 Description: "Current text suggests that the Consumer MUST specify one of the modes from the entity meta-data. This should probably change into ""SHOULD"" because the service description may always change unexpectedly (Spec 0.85 Page 35 - line 18). alternative would be to add verbiage to the effect that the Consumer MUST NOT use a mode that the entity has not said it supports. The Producer SHOULD be prepared to receive a mode it does not currently support as it may have existed in a previous service description. The Consumer is not required to get a current snapshot all the time, but must abide by the snapshot it has. See #174 for same problem with roles" ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC