[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrf] ResourceProperty comments from HP
Brian, comments on some of your review comments. Regards, Ian Robinson STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions Architect IBM Hursley Lab, UK ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com "Murray, Bryan P." <bryan.murray@hp.com> wrote on 31/08/2005 18:25:40: > 2. Introduction talks about standardizing the means by which properties > are defined. We really are not specifying how a schema is defined, just > that there be a link to it from the WSDL doc - so we are not > standardizing the means the properties are defined. The introduction (line 102) says: "This specification standardizes the means by which the definition of the properties of a WS-Resource may be declared as part of the Web service interface. " This does not seem unreasonable or incorrect > 4. I would remove the non-goal section, partly because we are moving > that direction, partly because it is not very relevant. This is useful and reflects a statement to the same effect in the charter. The purpose of this statement is to make clear that properties referenced in WSRF-RP messages are identified by QName. WS-RF is not competing with XQuery Update. > 6. Line 163: this paragraph should be removed because there are no > references to infoset. In fact every use of brackets indicates one of > the references in the reference section and not an infoset property. > Also, the "[XML Infoset]" reference should be "[XML-Infoset]" to match > the reference section. This comment applies equally to all the WS-RF specs > 7. The SOAP 1.1 namespace is used. Since we only show the wsa:Action > header with no mustUnderstand, there is no need to be restricted to SOAP > 1.1. Lets do what WSN did and use the prefix 's' to mean both versions > of SOAP. We specifically resolved to use SOAP 1.1 for the examples in issue 99. These are non-normative but we nevertheless declared the namespace in section 1.3. > 10. I think we could remove the interface field from all of the > wsa:Action definitions since that interface will never be realized. The wsa:Action definitions are deliberately chosen to follow the defaults specified in the WS-Addressing WSDL Binding spec: [target namespace][delimiter][port type name][delimiter][input|output name] The advantage of using this default is that it makes it unnecessary for the service provider to explicitly specify wsa:Action attributes in their WSDL. > 11. Line 389: The spec says "... comprise all of the resource property > values ...". It seems to me that the contents comprise only that portion > of the XML representation of the resource that the resource is willing > to give you. For security reasons it may not give you everything. The > client should be ready to take what it can get and not necessarily > expect to get everything. Also, this statement is repeated for every > message exchange, wouldn't it be better to just state it once and have > it apply to all message exchanges. Can you propose a concrete statement that the specification should make in place of this?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]