[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrm] [REL-XX]Proposal for POLL RM-Reply Pattern
Hi, I think I've told all my technical arguments and clearly expressed my proposal as well. I'm not into personalities, so I am out of this thread. Best regards, Szabolcs > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Sunil Kunisetty [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: October 14,2003 16:32 > To: Payrits Szabolcs (NMP-MSW/Budapest) > Cc: email@example.com > Subject: Re: [wsrm] [REL-XX]Proposal for POLL RM-Reply Pattern > > > > Szabolcs, > > > Szabolcs.Payrits@nokia.com wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Before answer you mail, I express my hope that we can come > to a compromise in the end. > > As I said on the 2nd mail on this topic, I'm all ears on any > proposal as long as > it doesn't put additional design/implementation constraints. > > Also, most of the replies on this topic is nothing but > rumblings. I haven't > seen a complete & concrete alternate proposal with all the > details and > how this alternate solution solves the problems I mentioned before. > > As I agreed before, the only issue with my proposal is > un-intutiveness. > Except for that I don't see any problem with that. Other > pseudo proposals > are some what less un-intutive and have problems with them. > > > > > > > > Before I answer your questions, could you go on record with > > > your position on WSDL? I remember you saying to me at > the Redwood City F2F, > > > that you don't care about WSDL, and that WSDL is not > important. And at the > > > recent Boston F2F, you were arguing that a (wsdl) one-way > MEP can have a SOAP > > > envelope in the response. > > > > > > Don't we have a requirement that user's contract for which > > > RMP provides reliable messaging service should be defined > in WSDL? I > > > believe we also say this in our charter? > > > > I can't really see your point why you mention my personal > comment here. At that time Nokia had no special interest in > WSDL, because we had been in Web Service areas, where WSDL > was secondary, therefore for us it was more important to > proceed with the specificaiton than to argue about WSDL. > > However, we have realized that WSDL is important for other > participants in this TC, therefore we cannot disregard it. > Other factors have also been changed. > > Of course, we have different perspectives, but this fact > itself shouldn't prevent us from having a fruitful debate. > > > > It is important to know this as it will reflect your > commitment and understanding. > I apologize upfront to say this, but you don't seem to be > reading all my mails nor > you seem to understand the usage & importance of WSDL. > > > > > > So essentially you are saying that WSDL is not the contract > > > and rather it's an open ended contract? So essentially > you are saying that > > > the service endpoint should honor some requests (assume > they are namespace > > > qualified) even though they are not defined in the > Port/PortType, right? > > > > > > > I don't like this idea. I think it is rather you, who > demand it. You have been brought up lot > > Strange. Let me quote something from your email which > prompted my response. > You said earlier: > "Where is it written, that you HAVE TO define in > WSDL the SOAP > operations that are in soap:Body? ". > > So, now you are saying that you don't like that idea. > > > of arguments, why you don't want to include the poll > operation in WSDL. > > So do you want these operations to be present in WSDL or not? > > > > I suspect that you think that if you hide the operation in > SOAP Headers, then it is will stop being an operation and > then you don't have to answer the question above. I think > that would just hide the problems not solve them. > > Few comments: > 1) As I've been saying for a long time, I'm not treating > Poll as an operation, > rather QoS directive just as "AckRequested" and > "DuplicateElimination". > If according to you it's the latter 2 are operations > (because they are doing > some RM actions), then fine, treat PollRequest as an operation. > But then it is nothing different from the others. > 2) Operations can be sent in Headers as pretty much most QoS > WS specs. > are doing. I don't think it is written any where that > operations cannot be > sent in Headers. > 3) There is a distinction between User operations and System > operations. > The former is generally defined closurely in WSDL and is sent in > SOAP:Body and the latter may or may not be defined in > WSDL (using > SOAP Headers in SOAP Binding part) and is sent using SOAP > Headers. > > So I don't understand what you are trying to highlight here ... > > > > > > > > If the answer is yes, I don't think I'll spend my > invaluable time convincing > > > further. I'll rest my case then. > > > > Well... > > > > Well... > > > > > > > What makes the difference here? > > > > > > The difference is Headers are the extensible mechanisms > in SOAP. See > > > my original snippets and the reply I sent to Scott. > > > Headers can be sent > > > i) Without be defined in the wsdl as long as it is namespace > > > qualified. > > > ii) Can be forced to send it by defining it in the SOAP > > > Binding with mU=1 > > > iii) Can be optionally defined with mU=0 > > > > All these don't change the basic fact: what you have here > is an operation. What you are saying here is that it is easy > by to hide this operation by SOAP roles. Yes, it is easy. But > is shouldn't be done. > > First of all what SOAP "roles" has to do with it. > Second of all, there is distinction with User operation and > System operation (even > though I'm not treating Poll as an operation). > > > > > > > > > It depends. I think that is what common sense requires. > > > > Other functionalities (I don't call them operations) of > > > WSRM are supplementary functions, and are closely associated > > > with the payload. This one is different, it has nothing to do > > > with the actual payload. > > > > I imagine SOAP headers similar to XML attributes: they tell > > > something about the actual operation. They are not operations > > > themselves. > > > > Not necessarily. > > > > > Unfortunate you didn't address this point... > > > > > > > > > > "Generally speaking Body contents are meant for end > applications" > > > > > > > > I could agree with you, if we would not have decided at the > > > first f2f that SOAP intermediaries are out of question. The > > > consequence of leaving out intermediaries is that you don't > > > differentiate on the SOAP level between "end application" and > > > "WSRM". Yes, if > > > > > > I don't understand this. If someone can enlighten me, I'll > > > appreciate it. I don't understand > > > what has this to do with SOAP intermediaries. > > > > I think this is a secondary question, but I have to answer > to play by the rules. > > When we decided not to support SOAP intermediaries, that > decision also meant, that from SOAP point of view, we have > only two endpoint: sender and receiver. So we don't have more > "horizontal" architectural element, and we dont' > differentiate between "end-application" and anybody else > standing before the "end application" in the SOAP chain. > > We don't differentiate anyone in between, however, on both > ends we distinguish > RMP/SOAP processor with the application layer. Look it all > our pictures in our > specification. > > > > > On the other hand, you might think of the vertical, > layered architecture, when the Body should be sent to the > application on the top of the "stack". Yes, this latter is > one possible (and clean) scenario, but I can show you > counterexamples from existing specifications (Body element > intended for supplementar libararies and header elements > indended for the application on the top of the stack). > > That's what I was thinking of, but thisoneisn'tthemain point here. > > > > > > > "Piggybacking will be prohibited." > > > > > > > > Why ? > > > > > > If you are sending it the SOAP Body, how can you > piggyback on another > > > request? > > > > That's what definitely shouldn't be done. > > Why not? > > > > > > > However, sending more Acks in one Response is a question > if we really want to have it. > > > > > > > "There is nothing wrong in sending operations in SOAP Headers. > > > > a. It won't be re-inventing a new MEP, as MEPs deal > > > with Senders & Receivers and not Body or Header. The current > > > proposal still constitutes the R-R MEP." > > > > > > > > Right, but if you put it into the Body, then the MEP is > > > handled by the SOAP library > > > > > > What? > > > > SOAP library. Whateven an actual applicaton uses. Check > this page for the current implementaions of SOAP 1.1: > > http://www.soapware.org/directory/4/implementations > > Last time I've checked (mid 2002), there were already 86 > different SOAP implemenations. > > > > I understand, but I don't understand the relevance here. > > > > > > > (whatever SOAP library you are using). In the latter case, > > > you have to implement the state machine associated with the > > > R-R MEP. And if you enable the combination of poll operation > > > and application-level operation, then you will also have to > > > find out how tho handle two MEPs at the same time. I would > > > prevent combining the Application MEP and poll MEPs. > > > > > > > > > > Agree. That's the reason we shouldn't combine them in the > > > application's WSDL. > > > > You apparently misunderstand me. I am not arguing for > having it combined with application WSDL. > > So what is your proposal? Who ever is proposing one, could > send in another > mail the complete proposal. > > > > > I simply don't want to mix different MEPs (dont' repeat my > section above). And definitely > > who is mixing the MEPs? > > > NOT piggybacking the poll operation on the top of any other > operations. > > Why not? > > > > > > > But even if I don't like the idea of hiding full-blown > operations into SOAP headers, this spec is a common work of > us. So I could live with the fact that for sake of peace the > operations are put into Headers, if this operation is cleary > defined by the spec as operation, and it is cannot be mixed > with other operations. > > If piggybacking is your only concern, and everyone has the > same concern, we can > exclude it. > > As I said before, yes there are some issues with > piggybacking in this case, but > the issues are general as in other piggybacking messages we > will. If we solve > them with certain rules, we could apply the same rules here > without any problem. > > > > I think the question still remains if you want the Poll > expressed in WSDL or not, but we can pretend we didn't have > to solve it. > > As I said before, you can still do that without any problem > if it was in Header or > using annotations. > > > > > > Even this solution would cause some problem with the > interoperability with other WS standards (how you sigitally > sign a Poll operation etc. Yes, you might not want to, but > somebody may want. And WS specs are meant to be "orthogonal"). > > I don't understand the concern. Do you mean > WS-ReliableMessaging etc...? > If some WS-Reliability supports the Poll operation as > specified, why won't it be > interoperable? > > > > > However, I hope (and only hope), that this would not be a > fatal problem. > > > > Best regards, > > Szabolcs > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from > the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]