[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] SOAP extensions best practices: a Reliability container element?
It also requires the spec to be updated. E.g. Figure 5, 6, examples and Section 4. However I don't see many benefit with this change. Since we usually use only Request element in the Reliable Message. And we usually only use Response element in the RM-Reply. So does PollRequest. Only difference with this change is for piggybacking. Since this is not critical issue, I like to keep the current packaging. Thanks, Iwasa PS. If we really want to change this and we can agree with this change with concrete text right now, so I can update the spec by the end of this week. But again, I don't see enough benefit with this change. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacques Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> To: "WSRM (E-mail)" <wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 9:57 AM Subject: [wsrm] SOAP extensions best practices: a Reliability container element? > This can be seen as an editorial comment for the schema: > > There seems to be a best practice pattern in using SOAP header extensions, > that we don't follow in WS-Reliability: If you look at several WS specs > (either open or not), you'll find that they package all their extension > material in a single Header block. This is wise as there may be many header > blocks related to various specs. Using a single element makes it easier to > refer to it in always the same way (e.g. with XML Dsig). > > E.g. WS-Security uses a unique <wsse:Security> header child element to > contain all possible security options and subelements. The content may vary > widely from a message to the other, depending on security features being > used, but everything that relates to Security in the message is withing this > container element. > > So Hamid and I propose for WS-R to always embed any RM-related header that > may > appear in a message, (a request, a response, a Poll request...) within a > "Reliability" container element. > We would have for example: > > <soap:Header> > <RM:Reliability> > <Request> > ... > </Request> > </RM:Reliability> > </soap:Header> > > In case of piggybacking a Response with another reliable message: > > <soap:Header> > <RM:Reliability> > <Request> > ... > </Request> > <Response> > ... > </Response> > </RM:Reliability> > </soap:Header> > > Same for PollRequest. > > Having discussed with Sunil, that would reduce the concerns he had on the > naming of our header elements. In other words, using general names like > Request, Response, would not be an issue within a Reliability container. > > I know there is not much time for resolving this, so if it appears to be > contentious I would not insist. I submit this because we believe the change > is mostly editorial. It affects the schema of course, but mostly as a minor > extension, no impact on how we treat it in the spec. > Let me know if you see this as "reasonable" enough to agree on by next week. > > > Jacques > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]