wsrf message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrf] Alternative GetAllResourceProperties proposal
- From: Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 16:19:38 -0400
Consistency is nice, but valid use cases
are even better. We should not be driven by architectural considerations
that are *not* backed up by use.
So, are we serious to consider PutRPDoc?
Do we seriously consider that wholesale change/update of RPs on mass
with a single put is reasonable? Would anyone want this? Does WSDM?
What is the semantics of doing a PutRPDoc that contains properties
that are normally read-only. I see a can of worms here that I don't
think are worth opening for "architectural purity" reasons alone.
sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++
"Sedukhin, Igor S"
<Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
10/06/2004 03:58 PM
|
To
| "Springer, Ian P."
<ian.springer@hp.com>, <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [wsrf] Alternative GetAllResourceProperties
proposal |
|
+1 to "GetResourcePropertiesDocument"
Now, this also, somehow leads
me to think that we'd need a "PutResourcePropertiesDocument"
to mirror this functionality and be logically consistent.
--
Igor Sedukhin
..
(igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631)
342-4325 ..
1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY
11788
From: Springer, Ian P. [mailto:ian.springer@hp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:24 AM
To: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrf] Alternative GetAllResourceProperties proposal
Steve,
I just checked the spec
and the term used is actually "resource properties document"
(properties plural), so for consistency, the operation name should be "GetResourcePropertiesDocument".
-Ian
From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 9:48 AM
To: Springer, Ian P.
Cc: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrf] Alternative GetAllResourceProperties proposal
I am fine with the name change to GetResourcePropertyDocument.
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++
"Springer, Ian P."
<ian.springer@hp.com>
10/06/2004 09:10 AM
|
To
| <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [wsrf] Alternative GetAllResourceProperties
proposal |
|
Steve,
I like the old way better, because it is consistent with the response formats
of GetResourceProperty and GetMultipleResourceProperties - i.e. the children
of the response element are the property elements. Also, I'm not sure what
value including the property document element adds.
However, if you do decide to include the document element, I think a better
name for the operation would be GetResourcePropertyDocument.
Regards,
Ian
From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 8:01 AM
To: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrf] Alternative GetAllResourceProperties proposal
WSRFers:
I posted a modified GetAllResourceProperties proposal [1], with WSDL [2]
This is a slight modification to the original proposal, in that the response
to the request wrappers the resource property values with a root element
(which is the root element of the resource properties document.
Please comment
sgg
[1]http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/9574/GetAllResourceProperties.b.doc
[2]http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/9575/GetAllResourceProperties.wsdl
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]