OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrm message

[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]