From: Jeff Bohren
Sent: Thursday, March
06, 2003 8:02 AM
Subject: [provision] Proposal for
issues 1.1.1 and 1.1.3...
Two of the current open issues are 1.1.1 and 1.1.3, which
1.1.1. Batch Requests (Open)
Champion: Conrad Agramont, Microsoft
Description: SPML should not use batch requests. Only single
operations should be supported. This affects both the SPML SOAP/HTTP and File
1.1.3. Need Supported Operations
Champion: Jeff Bohren, OpenNetwork Technologies
Description: There is no mechanism in the current
specification that allows for a SPML client to query a service for what
operations it supports. This only affects the SPML SOAP/HTTP Binding.
I have a proposal that addresses both of these issues. My
1) add top-level request elements
for all of the SPML operations defined in the core schema to the request schema
2) change batchStatusRequest and
batchCancelRequest to statusRequest and cancelRequest, respectively
3) remove the schemeRequest and
searchRequest element from the batch request
That would make the total list of requests:
By making this change, we can partly satisfy issue 1.1.1,
since batch requests are not optional and not required for conformance. It will
also satisfy issue 1.1.3 because the supported requests would now be defined in
the WSDL for each web service. Additionally removing search and schema requests
from the batch requests makes more sense because they are really not
appropriate for batch type operations.
To make this change, all that need to be done is to add
request element types in the request schema that add the
synchronous/asynchronous attribute. For instance to define this for add
requests, the following would be added to the request schema:
name="addRequest" type="AddRequest" />
name="addResponse" type="spml:AddResponse" />
Then the WSDL for a web service that supported this type of
add request would be modified as:
The only other change I would make is around conformance. I
would specify that if a SPML web service supports batch, it should support add,
modify, and delete operations within the batch. By making this change we would
completely satisfy issues 1.1.3.
Any thoughts on this?
Darran, could you add a motion for this to the agenda for
Monday’s call? Thanks.
OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc