RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded

["Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>]

Then we must delay publication of WSDM 0.5 until it clarifies how exactly to get proper EPRs. Otherwise it is unuseable.
The statement in the WSRF 
[
A WS-Resource-qualified
endpoint reference may be returned as a result of a Web service message request to
a factory to create a new WS-Resource or, alternatively, from the evaluation of a
search query on a service registry, or as a result of some application-specific Web
service request.
]
Does not help WSDM 0.5 implementers at all.

The http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-resource/ws-modelingresources.pdf says
[
Note that other patterns for enabling access to stateful resources are possible. For
example, a Web service could maintain the resource identity as static service state,
thus obviating the need to pass that identity in the WS-Addressing endpoint
reference. This design choice implies a one-to-one mapping from Web service
endpoints to stateful resources and thus a need for a unique Web service endpoint
for each stateful resource.
]
So I don't understand why April 14-15th tests are not compliant to WSDM 0.5 or WSRP or WSRF?...

It was just a matter of clearly stating the case istead of delaying it for the better times...

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788

-----Original Message-----
From: Murray, Bryan P. [mailto:bryan.murray@hp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:03 PM
To: Sedukhin, Igor S; Vambenepe, William N; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded

WSDM has decided to use WS-ResourceProperties to support its need for attributes for version 0.5. I think we should not add a constraint to the WSDM specs contradicting some of what is required by WS-RP.

This does not mean that a manageability endpoint needs to supply an EndpointReference that makes use of ReferenceProperties. But, since WS-RP is based on WS-Addressing, it does mean that a compliant manageability endpoint does need to understand the WSA SOAP headers.

Furthermore, a compliant manageability client does need to understand the ReferenceProperties aspect of an EndpointReference and treat them appropriately when sending messages to that endpoint.

The interop tests we run in April 14-15 are not WSDM 0.5 compliant. I expect that the tests we run at the next face-to-face will be. We can't just kludge the spec to make our interop tests work. The interop tests need to be used to validate that we are using the right technology in our spec.

Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:46 PM
To: Vambenepe, William N; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip
uploaded


I just want to define consistently interoperable specs. This has nothing
to do with the interop scenario.

If I give you a WSDL that follows WSDM 0.5 and in the binding it states
that WSA headers are required and mustUnderstand. There is no way you
can talk to such manageabilty endpoint without knowing where to get the
EPRs.

In the 1.0 or 0.8 if we decide to explain how and where to get the EPRs
for this case, we can remove the statement.

The problem here is that WS-Resource pattern is the "default" in WSRP
and so we'd have to constrain to make it work for 0.5. If it was
otherwise, i.e. "singleton" was defualt, we'd not have to state
anything.

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788

-----Original Message-----
From: Vambenepe, William N [mailto:vbp@hp.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:31 PM
To: Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip
uploaded


Hi Igor,

> 770 Section 6 should say
> "WS-ResourceProperties MUST be used in a singleton pattern.
> WSA headers are not expected and not required in message exchanges."
> We may remove this statement after we have discussed this and 
> addressed properly.

How about we discuss before adding the statement? :-)

I don't understand why we need this statement. I understand that we have
chosen to limit ourselves to this case in the interop demo, but why does
that mean the spec needs to be limited to this? This is just one of many
decisions we have made for the sake of simplicity in the interop and I
don't have a problem with it in that context. But what is the rational
for restricting the WSRF implied resource pattern in the spec?

Do you have a reason that would not apply to WSRF but would apply to
WSDM and would therefore require us to profile WSRF in such a way?

William

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leave_workgrou
p.php.



To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leave_workgrou
p.php.