[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrf] WS-RMD issue: precedence of RMD location
I still think we're over-complicating things by having the same MDD reference available from 2 locations. We might do better to produce a less flexible but more concise spec. Worrying about relative URIs for use pre-deployment is, in my opinion, over achieving and not a requirement for interoperability. Regards, Ian Robinson STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions Architect IBM Hursley Lab, UK ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com Daniel Jemiolo <danjemiolo@us.ib m.com> To Tim Banks/UK/IBM@IBMGB 17/03/2006 02:37 cc wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org Subject Re: [wsrf] WS-RMD issue: precedence of RMD location Hi Tim, Here are some possible answers: > 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? I think that the two MetadataDescriptor names MUST be the same; once the RMD document is resolved, a resource should point to one descriptor in the document no matter how the client came to find it. The URI of of the RMD document is another story - the two URIs should resolve to the same document, but one (in the WSDL portType) may be relative. > Does the resourceProperty takes precedence if they aren't the same? I think that remote clients should only use the property when trying to locate the document and descriptor. This seems like the only way to guarantee robust metadata exchange (without reinventing WS-MEx). > This would provide some wiggle room for services that start out > with no MDD, buthen get one and might like to keep happy those > clients who used the original WSDL. Since RMD support is not part of a resource type definition (like WSDM capabilities, for example), I think that this case is allowed by the current proposal. If/when a MDD is applied to a resource, the location/name of the MDD MUST be added to the WS-RP document and the WSDL portType. Clients using the original WSDL should not encounter problems because of the availability of the new property (right? I might have misunderstood the scenario). Dan Tim Banks <tim_banks@uk.ibm.com> To 03/15/2006 09:32 AM Daniel Jemiolo/Durham/IBM@IBMUS cc wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org Subject Re: [wsrf] WS-RMD issue: precedence of RMD location 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. +++
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]