OASIS Web Services Interactive Applications TC

RE: [wsrp][wsia][wsrp-wsia joint interfaces][Draft Spec 0.44]

  • 1.  RE: [wsrp][wsia][wsrp-wsia joint interfaces][Draft Spec 0.44]

    Posted 06-03-2002 11:03
     MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    wsia message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Subject: RE: [wsrp][wsia][wsrp-wsia joint interfaces][Draft Spec 0.44]


    
    I see 2 different issues in your comments:
    
    1)  Would it be better (cleaner, more understandable, etc) to have 2
    operations (createTransientEntity & createPersistentEntity) rather than a
    boolean parameter? I favor the 2 operation model as this is clearer for the
    developers of both the Producer and Consumer.
    
    2) If we choose the 2 operation model, would it be better to factor the
    createPersistentEntity operation into a separate portType? I think the
    fundamental tradeoff here is complexity. The question is whether requiring
    a Producer that only supports the creation of such persistent entities
    though out-of-band means to implement an operation that always returns null
    (or throws a spec defined fault) is worse than requiring Consumers to deal
    with this being an optional operation (potentially breaking the goal of
    this level of the spec supporting plug-n-play of Producers). In this case,
    I would strongly favor requiring the Producer to implement the operation
    and having the spec define the expected behaviour.
    
    
    
                                                                                                                         
                          Eilon Reshef                                                                                   
                          <eilon.reshef@webc        To:       wsia@lists.oasis-open.org, wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org       
                          ollage.com>               cc:                                                                  
                                                    Subject:  RE: [wsrp][wsia][wsrp-wsia joint interfaces][Draft Spec    
                          06/03/2002 01:10           0.44]                                                               
                          AM                                                                                             
                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                         
    
    
    
    Rich,
    
    Sorry for the late response --
    
    I am slightly concerned with the approach of consolidating the "create"
    operations into a single concept. Not to beat a dead horse, but your
    previous analysis revealed different operations, such as:
    - Creating a transient thingy from a persistent one ("instantiation").
      This is a relatively simple concept.
    - Creating a persistent thingy from another persistent one.
      This is a much more complex beast, that raises questions such
      as inheritance, cloning, etc. - not sure that there's a single
      operation here.
    - Creating a persistent thingy from a transient one.
      This is even a more complex beast: the question of what gets
      persisted etc. is tough (e.g., the user has just typed in a
      stock symbol, does that get persisted?). It probably deserves
      a different interface.
    - Creating a transient thingy from another transient one.
      Not sure if that's needed at all.
    
    In addition, I foresee many services, especially in the WSIA world but
    possibly even in WSRP in B2B scenarios, where an organization would provide
    run-time access to a WSIA service / portlet but would not support creating
    new persistent thingies, etc. (which require manual processes that relate
    to
    approval, billing, etc.).
    
    I believe we would be much better off defining the run-time model
    separately
    (i.e., creating transient thingies and transferring them throughout the
    interaction), and then merge it with the management aspects, which, as
    Alejandro suggested, may even be better encapsulated as separate
    interfaces,
    and even if not - have a completely different spin to them.
    
    Any thoughts?
    
    Eilon