Subject: Work Queue Rotation #6

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:00:29 -0700

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomPubIssuesList

PaceDate<Person'sName> - move to closed

PaceIntrospection.  This has received exactly zero commentary.  In this 
case, I think it's unlikely that this means everyone agrees, since it's 
a fairly substantial and lightly-discussed piece of functionality.  I'm 
inclined to interpret this as "the WG doesn't know what to do with this 
yet" and mark this one as revisit. If the revisit doesn't garner 
consensus, we should then mark it as closed.

PacePostLocationMust.  This looks like correction of an obvious 
oversight, we had one +1 and no further discussion.  I suggest we mark 
"accepted" and ask Protocol draft editors to take it on board.

PaceProvideSchema.  I think we have strong consensus that there be Atom 
schemas in XSD and RNG, but that they not be normative, and we have 
people who are apparently willing to work on them and track the drafts. 
   Let's mark this "Accepted" and it's the responsibility of the 
co-chairs/secretary to make sure that there are up-to-date schemas when 
we get close to 1.0.

PaceWSDL.  Well, this one (as Sam pointed out) is tied up with the 
shape our SOAP support takes.  At least nobody shrieked "No WSDL."  
Back on the revisit list, I think.

Time for Sam to turn the crank.  -Tim

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:25:40 -0400

> people who are apparently willing to work on them and track the drafts.
	I strongly believe that there should be an ASN.1 schema provided as
well and I'm willing to do the work. ASN.1 is just as much an "XML Schema"
language as the others are...

		bob wyman

---

From: Mark Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:33:48 -0400

> Back on the revisit list, I think.

Oops, I meant to do that earlier after waiting a few days to hear what
others were saying.  I'm -1 on PaceWSDL.

Simply, I just see very little value in a WSDL description of the Atom
protocol.  The bulk of what the proposed WSDL communicates is just that
"Atom operations are HTTP operations"; all the *in, *out, action URIs,
etc.. is just a (very!) long winded way of saying that.  WSDL 1.1 is,
IMO, unsuitable for describing these kinds of (RESTful) services.  And
FWIW, WSDL 2.0 isn't much better (though it could have been if proposals
by myself and Dave Orchard weren't rejected).

FWIW, this doesn't mean I'm against using SOAP.

Mark.

---

From: Dare Obasanjo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:49:32 -0700 (PDT)

--- Mark Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> protocol.  

I see a lot of value for developers on platforms that
support XML Web Services such as the .NET Framework
and Visual Studio.NET. 

> The bulk of what the proposed WSDL
> communicates is just that

Besides religious objections to WSDL as a technology
are there any technical reasons for voting -1 on
PaceWSDL? 

=====
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #25
No matter how well it would perform, I will never construct any sort of machinery which is completely indestructible except for one small and virtually inaccessible vulnerable spot.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:46:42 +0100

> are there any technical reasons for voting -1 on

This looks like the same class of argument as the one for and 
against schemata. If we're going to be consistent in design the same 
rules we apply there will apply here.

Breaking it down on technical/religious lines isn't helpful, it just 
encourages a flamefest.

cheers
Bill

---

From: Mark Pilgrim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:49:45 -0400

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:49:32 -0700 (PDT), Dare Obasanjo <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Simply, I just see very little value in a WSDL
> > description of the Atom protocol.
> 

This from the person who implemented MSDN Web Services using print statements?

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/9/4/122544/7625

> are there any technical reasons for voting -1 on

I don't see any religious objections in Mark's statement.  I see a
statement from an expert saying that WSDL simply doesn't bring very
much to the table, due to limitations of WSDL.  How is it religious
simply because he understands enough about the limitations to have
recommended improvements in the past?

-- 
Cheers,
-Mark

---

From: Dare Obasanjo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:50:17 -0700 (PDT)

> recommended improvements in the past?

Argument from authority is no argument. If there are
technical reasons there shouldn't be an informative
WSDL in the spec I'd like to know them. Quite frankly,
lots of people are going to create WSDLs for the Atom
API (lots already have) and in the interest of interop
I'd rather see them using the same WSDL that different
ones which will all be slightly incompatible. 

=====

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:39:00 -0400

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

> Quite frankly,

What should be included in the spec?  WSDL 1.1?  WSDL 2.0?  Both?

- Sam Ruby

---

From: Dare Obasanjo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:12:41 -0700 (PDT)

> What should be included in the spec?  WSDL 1.1? 

I'd prefer WSDL 1.1 since WSDL 2.0 isn't done and I
suspect it won't be done before Atom is completed. 

=====

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

---

From: Mark Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:19:14 -0400

> ones which will all be slightly incompatible. 

Can you explain how interop is improved by a standard WSDL for Atom?
As I see it, as long as the WSDL is used to generate code which
implements the Atom protocol accurately, then interop is achieved.
This need not require that the same or even compatible WSDL is used,
AFAICT.

But perhaps there's a use case for it which I'm missing.  Or perhaps
you have a different definition of "interop"?  I can't tell.

BTW, I would be very interested in any information you had about tools
which support, or plan to support, generating HTTP stubs and skeletons
when provided the kind of HTTP-centric WSDL seen in PaceWSDL.  I'm
skeptical about such an approach being very useful, especially
considering how little information is actually in those WSDL documents
(when compared with all the information conveyed by HTTP), but I'd be
happy to be shown to be wrong.

Mark.