Re: [wsrf] WS-RMD issue: precedence of RMD location

[Tim Banks <tim_banks@uk.ibm.com>]

Hi Dan,

Yes - this would be an improvement....

Daniel Jemiolo <danjemiolo@us.ibm.com> wrote on 08/03/2006 21:51:56:

>
> During the last TC call, Dave S. brought up the fact that WS-RMD has
> two ways of specifying the location of the resource's RMD but no
> order of precedence for reading/verifying them. What follows is a
> proposed resolution:
>
> 0. If a resource has an RMD, it must have the location specified in
> a resource property and the WSDL portType attribute. Today, the
> property is optional.

Your suggestion makes sure that an MDD is present in the Resource
Properties.
Should we add a statement to say that the MDD referenced from the WSDL and
the one referenced from the resourceProperty SHOULD be the same Qname?
Does the resourceProperty takes precedence if they aren't the same?
This would provide some wiggle room for services that start out with no
MDD, but
then get one and might like to keep happy those clients who used the
original WSDL.

>
> 1. The property value must be an absolute URI. It should be easy to
> generate this value at runtime, when the final deployment info of
> the resource is known. The value provided in the WSDL attribute may
> be a relative path, and this may not resolve for remote clients (but
> may be useful during design time).
>
> Note: Relative paths may not resolve because many SOAP engines use
> virtual paths to distinguish between different web services. A
> client that discovers the WSDL through ?wsdl query or WS-
> MetadataExchange would not know how to map the relative path against
> the URL of the service.

+1

>
> 2. Simplify the data type of the WSDL
> portType/@metadataDescriptorLocation attribute from "list of pair of
> URIs" to "xsd:anyURI" so that there is one descriptor per portType.

+1

>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Dan Jemiolo
> IBM Corporation
> Research Triangle Park, NC
>
>
> +++ I'm an engineer. I make slides that people can't read. Sometimes
> I eat donuts. +++