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

[David Snelling <David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com>]

Ian,

I think I agree here. Will you bring this up on new issues?

On 19 Mar 2006, at 13:19, Ian Robinson wrote:

>
>
>
>
> 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. +++
>
>
>
>
-- 

Take care:

     Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com >
     Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe
     Hayes Park Central
     Hayes End Road
     Hayes, Middlesex  UB4 8FE

     +44-208-606-4649 (Office)
     +44-208-606-4539 (Fax)
     +44-7768-807526  (Mobile)