Re: [NEW ISSUE] granularity of MTOM policy assertion
Christopher B Ferris <[email protected]> Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:06:12 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.distributed |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OFB7116359.17D19E95-ON85257323.0068681E-85257323.0068C78A@us.ibm.com> |
This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 00687D1985257323_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Jean-Jacques, I realize that you may be on holiday, but I am just following up on this note as the WG is awaiting your response, Cheers, Christopher Ferris STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy email: [email protected] blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris phone: +1 508 234 2986 __________________ Jean-Jacques, The XMLP WG has made a preliminary determination to close issue 4341 [1] and a couple other related issues with no action. The WG felt that while it might be a more pure approach, we did not feel that there were compelling enough use cases to add the complexity. Additionally, given the resolutions to issue 4506, we allow the use cases that would have a SOAP request followed by an MTOM response when the assertion is either marked with wsp:Optional, or when there are multiple alternatives present, some with and some without the MTOM assertion. Before we close this issue, we would appreciate your feedback. If you can provide compelling use cases, we would certainly like to understand them better. Cheers, [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4341 Christopher Ferris STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy email: [email protected] blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris phone: +1 508 234 2986 [email protected] wrote on 02/20/2007 11:58:39 AM: > > +1, we should be able to set the assertion at the message/operation > level (SOAP/WSDL terminology). Another example that comes to mind is > SOAP-Reponse, i.e. a GET/POST request followed by an MTOM response. > > JJ. > > Christopher B Ferris wrote: > > > > Title: granularity of MTOM policy assertion > > > > Description: The assertion requires all messages, regardless of > > whether there is binary content, to be sent as > > application/xop+xml. Is this correct behavior? Shouldn't the assertion > > granularity be finer, e.g. such that a client > > could send a SOAP request (application/soap+xml) and receive an MTOM > > response (application/xop+xml) > > and vice-versa? > > > > Justification: seems odd at best to send xop serialized message even > > when there is no binary content. > > > > Type: technical > > > > Proposal: TBD > > > > Cheers, > > > > Christopher Ferris > > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy > > email: [email protected] > > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris > > phone: +1 508 377 9295 > > --=_alternative 00687D1985257323_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Jean-Jacques, </font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I realize that you may be on holiday, but I am just following up on this note as the WG is awaiting your</font> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">response,</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Cheers,</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Christopher Ferris<br> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy<br> email: [email protected]<br> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris<br> phone: +1 508 234 2986</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">__________________</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Jean-Jacques,</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The XMLP WG has made a preliminary determination to close issue 4341 [1] and a couple other related issues</font> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">with no action. </font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The WG felt that while it might be a more pure approach, we did not feel that there were compelling enough use cases</font> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">to add the complexity. Additionally, given the resolutions to issue 4506, we allow the use cases that</font> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">would have a SOAP request followed by an MTOM response when the assertion is either marked with</font> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">wsp:Optional, or when there are multiple alternatives present, some with and some without the </font> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">MTOM assertion.</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Before we close this issue, we would appreciate your feedback. If you can provide compelling use cases,</font> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">we would certainly like to understand them better.</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Cheers,</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4341</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Christopher Ferris<br> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy<br> email: [email protected]<br> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris<br> phone: +1 508 234 2986</font> <br> <br><tt><font size=2>[email protected] wrote on 02/20/2007 11:58:39 AM:<br> <br> > <br> > +1, we should be able to set the assertion at the message/operation <br> > level (SOAP/WSDL terminology). Another example that comes to mind is <br> > SOAP-Reponse, i.e. a GET/POST request followed by an MTOM response.<br> > <br> > JJ.<br> > <br> > Christopher B Ferris wrote:<br> > ><br> > > Title: granularity of MTOM policy assertion<br> > ><br> > > Description: The assertion requires all messages, regardless of <br> > > whether there is binary content, to be sent as<br> > > application/xop+xml. Is this correct behavior? Shouldn't the assertion <br> > > granularity be finer, e.g. such that a client<br> > > could send a SOAP request (application/soap+xml) and receive an MTOM <br> > > response (application/xop+xml)<br> > > and vice-versa?<br> > ><br> > > Justification: seems odd at best to send xop serialized message even <br> > > when there is no binary content.<br> > ><br> > > Type: technical<br> > ><br> > > Proposal: TBD<br> > ><br> > > Cheers,<br> > ><br> > > Christopher Ferris<br> > > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy<br> > > email: [email protected]<br> > > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris<br> > > phone: +1 508 377 9295 <br> > <br> > <br> </font></tt> --=_alternative 00687D1985257323_=--