wsrf message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrf] new issue: portType composition and properties document composition
- From: "Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>
- To: "Steve Graham" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>,"Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:41:08 -0700
Steve,
Can you explain how removing the description of forming the
RP document is necessary for interop?
In the meantime, +1 to Igor (with correction 4.3 to
4.4).
William
Section 4.3 defines the
@ResourceProperties attribute extension of WSDL 1.1 portType. This is absolutely
required. We cannot and should not remove section 4.3
Now, Igor's discussion suggests that it is perhaps
section 4.4 that is the issue. I am ok with removing the cut and paste
discussion and moving it into the app note. I am totally against removing
the descriptoin of forming the RP document. This text must stay for
purposes of interoperability of RP docs across different smashed
portTypes.
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>
10/29/2004 12:45 AM
|
To
| <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [wsrf] new issue:
portType composition and properties document
composition |
|
Before I forget, here is the issue that I promised to post after we
closed the "DerivedFrom" issue with no action.
[
I propose to
remove section 4.3 from the WSRF-RP document in favor of
#1 the document defines a number of
message exchanges which an implementer of a Web services endpoint will need to
support and, as a consequence, describe in a WSDL document following the rules
defined by WSDL. The only conformance claim that the WSRF-RP specification can
define is therefore that the implemented WSRF-RP message exchnages MUST be
described in WSDL. Full stop.
I want to note again, that
the current draft of the WSRF-RP specification does not require that operation
names in WSDL be one way or the other. This is good, and we must remove any
other claims that profile use of WSDL such as the section 4.3.
#2 The same applies to the properties
document. The implementer of a Web service endpoint which intends to support
WSRF-RP will decide what properties document schema is needed. The implementer
is responsible to understand what properties will be supported, how and why. Any
composition and rules thereof are part of such understanding. The implementer,
then, uses XML Schema to describe the properties document. Full stop.
I believe that WSRF-RP document MUST not make any assertions or
normative claims or even explanatory notes which describe how one comes to
realization *what* properties document to describe in the XML Schema. Therefore
section 4.3 must be removed.
]
Igor Sedukhin
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]