RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#178] The Consumer SHOULD NOT use a MODE notspecified in meta- data

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

Roughly you are arguing that Producers should be checking for inappropriate
behaviour on the part of the Consumer anyway and therefore why make this a
conformance issue. I think the spec should define a minimum conformance
level so that the normal is valid interactions rather than discovering
invalid interactions by catching exceptions.

Rich Thompson
Interaction Middleware and Standards for Portal Server
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Yorktown Heights, NY
(914) 945-3225
richt2@us.ibm.com




                                                                                                                          
                      Eilon Reshef                                                                                        
                      <eilon.reshef@webc        To:       wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org                                  
                      ollage.com>               cc:                                                                       
                                                Subject:  RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#178] The Consumer SHOULD NOT use a MODE not  
                      12/11/2002 09:39           specified in meta-   data                                                
                      PM                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                          



I am uncertain about this despite having raised the issue, but it seems to
me that there's intrinsic benefit to letting the protocol be robust with
respect to all the discovery-related operations. That is, even if the
Consumer never calls getDescription. For example, a dumb Consumer that
always assumes that there are two modes: view and edit. This is not to say
that the Producer should be required to provide meaningful behavior. To the
contrary, it should probably throw an exception. (I am sure most Producers
will do this check anyway.) It is just to say that there seems to be value
in allowing graceful and robust behavior for such dumb Consumers.
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
      Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 2:21 PM
      To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
      Subject: Re: [wsrp-wsia] [I#178] The Consumer SHOULD NOT use a MODE
      not specified in meta- data








      The alternative suggestion is the intent currently (at least for me
      ...), I
      think it is important to not weaken the statement about what mode a
      Consumer is allowed to set (i.e. must be one the entity said it
      supports in
      its metadata) so that entity will know what to do. This does not
      imply a
      requirement that the Consumer check that the mode is still supported
      at the
      point of usage.


      Rich Thompson







                            Gil Tayar


                            <Gil.Tayar@webcol        To:
      wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org


                            lage.com>                cc:


                                                     Subject:  [wsrp-wsia]
      [I#178] The Consumer SHOULD NOT use a MODE not


                            12/10/2002 03:18          specified in meta-
      data


                            AM










      Issue: 178
      Status: Active
      Topic: interface
      Class: Minor_Technical
      Raised by: Eilon Reshef
      Title: The Consumer SHOULD NOT use a MODE not specified in meta-data


      Date Added: 10-Dec-2002
      Document Section:   v0.85/5.1.6
      Description:
      "Current text suggests that the Consumer MUST specify one of the
      modes from
      the entity meta-data. This should probably change into ""SHOULD""
      because
      the service description may always change unexpectedly (Spec 0.85
      Page 35 -
      line 18).
      alternative would be to add verbiage to the effect that the Consumer
      MUST
      NOT use a mode that the entity has not said it supports. The Producer

      SHOULD be prepared to receive a mode it does not currently support as
      it
      may have existed in a previous service description. The Consumer is
      not
      required to get a current snapshot all the time, but must abide by
      the
      snapshot it has.
      See #174 for same problem with roles"





      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
      manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>