[BYTEIO-WG] ByteIO Interoperability Fiesta
Michel Drescher
Michel.Drescher at uk.fujitsu.com
Tue Jul 17 03:29:06 CDT 2007
Hi,
I got some more stuff to discuss: WS-Addressing mandates the use of the
wsa:Action information element. WS-Addressing also allows for explicit
association or default association of a wsa:Action value. The default
association generates a wsa:Action value derived automatically from the
invoked operation on the port type. However, the explicit association is
mandated to be specified in the portType rather in the binding.
As ByteIO uses WS-Addressing, I think we are facing the following issues:
- AFAIR RByteIO and SByteIO do not define explicit action values.
- However, the non-normative SOAP Encoding examples indicate explicit
values as the values given do not match the construction pattern for
default association based wsa:Action values.
- WSRF uses WS-Addressing, and explicitly defines wsa:Action values.
WSRF does not give the wsa:Action value in its portTypes as it expects
the user to create the portType according to the specification
- RByteIO and SByteIO port types do not specify the wsa:Addressing
wsa:Action attributes.
Currently I see these issues jeopardizing the interop fiesta success, so I
propose the following solution:
- ByteIO defines explicit wsa:Action values or all its operations on the
RByteIO and SByteIO operations.
- Change the RByteIO and SByteIO portTypes to reflect those explicit
wsa:Action values
- Change the RByteIO and SByteIO portTypes to reflect the explicit
wsa:Action values for the WSRF operations.
- Change the interop binding WSDLs for SByteIO and RByteIO in the interop
testing specification
- Publish a new draft 12 of the interop testing specification that reflets
all the proposed changes in this mail, plus the changes proposed on the
Wiki (regarding WS-I violating namespace issues, and the missing
ResourceUnknownFault issue).
If you guys agree to that, I'll take the pen to make all the necessary changes.
Any comments?
Cheers,
Michel
Michel Drescher wrote:
> Hi Karolina, all,
>
> thanks for pointing these things out, good catch!
>
> However, I think we are out of synch, mostly, I fear, it being y fault.
>
> I have been browsing though old notes of ByteIO WG sessions and mailsw on
> the ML, and I discovered the following:
> - We once decided to drop WSRF message exchanges except for
> GetResourceProperty, as we are testing ByteIO, not WSRF
> - We decided to keep the WSRF GetResourceProperty test cases (sections 4.1
> and 5.1) to check for a generally proper setup on the server side.
>
> I actually have a draft 11 of the ByteIO Interop testing document that
> reflects all this; it somehow totally slipped my mind that I had to do some
> editorial stuff on the interop document. :(
>
> Comments? Should I publish version 11, with or without the currently
> discovered issues?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
> Karolina Sadrnowska wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>>
>>
>> My name is Karolina Sarnowska. I am a part of Andrew Grimshaw’s group at the
>> University of Virginia. I have been working with Mark Morgan on getting Genesis
>> II ready for the Interoperability Fiesta. I wanted to email everyone what I
>> just posted on the Wiki regarding some issues with the documentation.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Karolina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> /ByteIO Interoperability Testing Scenarios/ Document Issues and Corrections
>>
>> This section lists issues in the /ByteIO Interoperability Testing Scenarios/
>> document and presents corrections. The issues are listed in the order that they
>> appear in the document and reference the specific section they refer to.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Missing Tags in SOAP Body of Request Message
>>
>> /(4.2) wsrf-rp:GetMultipleResourceProperties operation/
>>
>> The non-normative example of the elements the ByteIO client adds to the SOAP
>> body of the request message is missing the <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> tag. The
>> SOAP body should instead contain the following:
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:GetMultipleResourceProperties>
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> rbyteio:Readable </wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty>
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> rbyteio:Writeable </wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty>
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> rbyteio:TransferMechanism </wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty>
>>
>> </wsrf-rp:GetMultipleResourceProperties>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Incorrect Resource Property Name and Possibly Incorrect Query
>>
>> /(4.3) wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties operation/
>>
>> An incorrect name for the Resource Property is used in the non-normative example
>> of the elements the ByteIO client adds to the SOAP body of the request message.
>> The Resource Property queried is called “ModificationTime” not
>> “ModificationDate”. The SOAP body should instead contain the following:
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties>
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:QueryExpression Dialect=”http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116”>
>>
>> /*/rbyteio:ModificationTime
>>
>> </wsrf-rp:QueryExpression>
>>
>> </wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties>
>>
>> It is also unclear whether this example contains the correct query. If the query
>> does not need to include the namespace, then the query could be instead
>> “/*/ModificationTime”.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Missing Tag in SOAP Body of Response Message
>>
>> /(4.3) wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties operation/
>>
>> The non-normative example of the elements the ByteIO client adds to the SOAP
>> body of the response message is missing the <rbyteio:ModificationTime> tag. The
>> SOAP body should instead contain the following:
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:QueryResourcePropertiesResponse>
>>
>> <rbyteio:~ModificationTime>
>>
>> 2006-09-11T16:15:33+05:00
>>
>> </rbyteio:ModificationTime>
>>
>> </wsrf-rp:QueryResourcePropertiesResponse>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Missing Tags in SOAP Body of Request Message
>>
>> /(5.2) wsrf-rp:GetMultipleResourceProperties operation/
>>
>> The non-normative example of the elements the ByteIO client adds to the SOAP
>> body of the request message is missing the <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> tag. The
>> SOAP body should instead contain the following:
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:GetMultipleResourceProperties>
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> sbyteio:Seekable </wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty>
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> sbyteio:TransferMechanism </wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty>
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> sbyteio:EndOfStream </wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty>
>>
>> </wsrf-rp:GetMultipleResourceProperties>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Possibly Incorrect Query
>>
>> /(5.3) wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties operation/
>>
>> This section incorrectly refers to a modification date query. It should instead
>> state: In this case, the client wishes to query the resource’s writeable property.
>>
>> Mainly, it is unclear whether the non-normative example of the elements the
>> ByteIO client adds to the SOAP body of the response message contains the correct
>> query. If the query should include the namespace, then it should be
>> “/*/sbyteio:Writeable” and the SOAP body should then contain the following:
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties>
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:QueryExpression Dialect=”http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116”>
>>
>> /*/sbyteio:Writeable
>>
>> </wsrf-rp:QueryExpression>
>>
>> </wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties>
>>
>> If the namespace is not required, then querying for “/*/Writeable” if fine.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Missing Tag in SOAP body of Response Message
>>
>> /(5.3) wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties operation/
>>
>> The non-normative example of the elements the ByteIO client adds to the SOAP
>> body of the response message is missing the <sbyteio:Writeable> tag. The SOAP
>> body should instead contain the following:
>>
>> <wsrf-rp:QueryResourcePropertiesResponse>
>>
>> <sbyteio:Writeable>
>>
>> true
>>
>> </sbyteio:Writeable>
>>
>> </wsrf-rp:QueryResourcePropertiesResponse>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Discussion
>>
>> This section lists questions that need to be answered to resolve ambiguity in
>> the Interoperability Fiesta documentation.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Queries and Namespaces
>>
>> If the client wishes to query a resources property, should the query contain the
>> namespace? Which of the following queries are valid? The sections in parentheses
>> refer to where the queries appear in the “ByteIO
>> <http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/createPage/projects.byteio-wg/wiki?pageName=ByteIO&referrerPageName=HomePage>
>> Interoperability Testing Scenarios” document.
>>
>> * “/*/sbyteio:Writeable” vs. “/*/Writeable” (Section 5.3)
>> * “/*/rbyteio:ModificationTime” vs. “/*/ModificationTime” (Section 4.3)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> --
>> byteio-wg mailing list
>> byteio-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/byteio-wg
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> byteio-wg mailing list
> byteio-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/byteio-wg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/byteio-wg/attachments/20070717/99ca351b/attachment.pgp
More information about the byteio-wg
mailing list