From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Thu Nov 10 2005 - 11:50:00 EST
Hi Jerry,
[[Background for all readers - the WSDL/2.0 _working_drafts_
have just passed through a second W3C 'last call'. And the
W3C WSD WG has yet to agree to a new timeline for addressing
the W3C last call comments and publishing new working drafts
for potential advancement to W3C CR (Candidate Recommendation)
status. After the W3C CRs are adopted, proof of implementation
MUST be verified before they can advance to W3C PR (Proposed
Recommendation) and subsequently to W3C REC (Recommendation -
the equivalent of an IETF Standard). There are NO WSDL/2.0
toolkits in existence yet!]]
I agree that SOAP examples should be rigorous. The difficulty
I see with generating and reviewing these examples is that even
the WSDL/2.0 Part 2 Adjuncts spec has extensions in there for
forcing particular serialization and headers in the resulting
SOAP/1.2 (or SOAP/1.1) messages and in the UNDERLYING HTTP/1.1
messages and headers.
That is, merely writing accurate WSDL/2.0 for WIMS will NOT
guarantee interoperable SOAP/HTTP messages.
Bill queried whether we could/should just write accurate
SOAP/1.2 Operation Request and Response examples and avoid
the WSDL/2.0 work for now. I suggested that I think it will
be very hard to write a SOAP/1.2 example that can be certain
to be generated by ANY future WSDL/2.0 definition.
Note that the XML 'direct' bindings in Appendix A of WIMS
are straight MIME-based encodings of the actual WIMS XML
messages (defined in our WIMS Message schema) and are NOT
dependent on WSDL definitions for interoperability (but of
course, they're not SOAP-based either).
Note further that most of the WSDL/2.0 examples I've been able
to find so far do NOT use SOAP - they use the separate direct
binding of WSDL/2.0 to HTTP/1.1 and they associate WSDL/2.0
Interface Faults with HTTP faults (not SOAP faults). These
examples reflect the real world fact that existing Web servers
are serving HTML/XML directly over HTTP and NOT using SOAP
(because Browsers don't understand SOAP encodings).
I hope to have WSDL/2.0 and SOAP/1.2 (over HTTP/1.1) examples
for review in a few weeks. But it will NOT be possible to
do machine validation of these examples, so they may not add
the needed clarity to the WIMS over SOAP bindings.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org]On Behalf Of
thrasher@lexmark.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 4:06 PM
To: wims@pwg.org
Subject: WIMS> Re: Accuracy of SOAP examples
Regarding the question in the minutes about the accuracy of the SOAP
examples in the WIMS
specification.
I would think that the point of the WIMS protocol specification is to
provide enough
information for independent non-WIMS WG members to pick up the document and
create a WIMS Manager or a WIMS Agent that would be able to generate/consume
SOAP messages to/from a WIMS Manager/Agent from another independent non-WG
member. Hence, we should provide an unambiguous definition of how the WIMS
Operations,
Actions, and Responses should be generated in SOAP 1.2.
Short of that, we have created an abstract document that nobody could really
implement.
JT
--- Forwarded by Jerry Thrasher/Lex/Lexmark on 11/09/2005 03:49 PM -----
Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com>
Sent by: owner-wims@pwg.org
11/09/2005 03:31 PM
To: wims@pwg.org
cc:
Subject: WIMS> WIMS Nov 9 minutes
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/minutes/wims_051109.pdf
Next meeting Wed, Nov 16 2
Noon Eastern (NYC)
Toll Free: 1-866-365-4406
International: 00+1+303-248-9655
Passcode: 2635888#
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM STSM
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 10 2005 - 11:48:20 EST