Title: Message
Thanks.
BTW, I really liked the new
write-up.
Another question or two (I hope it's
OK...):
The getServiceDocument and hasPortType seem to be very
"generic" in the sense that they could apply to essentially every Web Service
(not necessarily a WSIA one). Pragmatists may even argue that it's somewhat of a
more sensible model than the registry model (UDDI) (especially the
getServiceDocument one, and especially if it can be provided via a simple HTTP
GET request). Do those definitions come from other IBM work (is this related to
IBM's dynamic Web Services invocation stuff?)? Do you know if such an approach
has been actively promoted anywhere else in the Web Services "world"?
How do you think that WSIA should handle this topic -
should we define such interfaces and state that they should be propagated to the
lower parts of the stack? Should we wait for the lower parts of the stack to
support it (I hope not)?
Any particular thoughts on the lifecycle management
along the same lines? Were you guys aware of any "generic" Web Services notion
that captures stateful Web Services? Should we define those interfaces and
basically explicitly note that we expect the lower part of the stack to adapt or
refine them? Or maybe are we (WSIA) the right part of the
stack?
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 3:55
PM
To: Eilon Reshef
Cc: ;
Subject: RE: [wsrp] WSXL paper
update
The framework does assume the Producer has a stateful service.
The case of
a stateless service can be indicated by
returning null from createInstance
() or possibly via
setting of some read-only property (may even just be in
the property schema. A Producer that acts in a stateless manner
doesn't
have a different interface, it ignores the
incoming handle and the values
in the propertyList can
be viewed as scoped to the request. It would be
appropriate to throw a fault on calls to setProperties() as
well.
It is an interesting question as to whether there is a WSIA
Property schema
that a property document must conform
too as well as the Producer's schema.
The flavor of
discussions has been toward resisting such a restriction with
the understanding that it may become necessary for the more advanced
use
cases.
The Adaptation Description Language has been going through a
significant
rewrite as the fundamental nature of
properties has evolved and this
rewrite is not
reflected in this version. The current definition has the
URI indicated as metadata for the service and there has been
discussion
about allowing this to be more dynamic both
to cover the cases you site and
those where different
business partners are provided with different
authorizations to customize the output.
Eilon
Reshef
<eilon.reshef@webc
To: Rich
Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
ollage.com>
cc:
Subject: RE: [wsrp] WSXL paper
update
04/12/2002
03:32
PM
Looks very interesting. I had some questions regarding the
WSXL document:
Am I correct in my understanding that the framework assumes
that the
Producer has a stateful service (portlet)
end, that can store and return
the property values? Is
this something you have been debating internally?
Did
you also consider a hybrid model in which the Producer doesn't have to
store the property list, but rather receives it in the
getOutput/invokeAction calls, but still able to publish a
schema for those
properties? Were there any
interesting other approaches and pros and cons?
Regarding properties, did you envision that any schema would
be legal, or
did you envision a model where the scheme
is constrained in some way (e.g.,
name value pairs,
...)?
You chose to have a semi-dynamic model for adaptation points,
so they are
not specified as part of the WSDL (makes
sense, since they might change
with versions of the
implementation), but are the same for all instances
(i.e., not on a per-instance basis). Did you have discussions around
cases
where the WSXL service is itself highly
customizable or personalized (based
on user /
configuration / sequence of pages / properties) so that the page
layout changes significantly, and how to address that within
the framework?
Eilon
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 12:17
PM
To:
Subject: [wsrp] WSXL paper update
Here is the update that will be
appearing soon on developerWorks:
(See attached file:
WSXL_Position_Paper.zip)
