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 17:19:16 -0400
I am struggling to understand that the
use cases are the same. With SetResourceProperties, the idea was
that the designer of the request would have access to the "right"
level of granularity to set only those properties that were "settable"
and that the requestor actually wished to set. It seems to me that with
PutRPDoc, we are suggesting that there are a non-trivial set of situations
wherein the entire set of properties is in fact "settable" and
that requestors will normally want to set all of the properties at the
same time. Have you seen this as a situation that is perceived as
"common" from WSDM? It strikes me that the more common
situation will be one in which several (often the majority) of a Ws-Resource's
properties are read-only, therefore rendering the use of PutRPDoc to be
marginal at best.
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 04:42 PM
|
To
| Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
| "Springer, Ian P."
<ian.springer@hp.com>, <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| RE: [wsrf] Alternative GetAllResourceProperties
proposal |
|
I guess the use case is the same
as the use case for update of multiple properties. If I know that I'm updating
all of them in a small record such as a cusomer record exposed as a WS
endpoint. Why would I necessarily have to assemble the fairly intricate
update multiple request instead of a simple put RP doc request?
--
Igor Sedukhin
..
(igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631)
342-4325 ..
1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY
11788
From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:20 PM
To: Sedukhin, Igor S
Cc: Springer, Ian P.; wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrf] Alternative GetAllResourceProperties proposal
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]