Dear all, Here are some comments from my colleague Oliver: AgreementSchemaTypes: wsa-Namespace is not used (should be removed) wsrf-bf: fault section could be moved to wsdl, therefore eliminating the dependency to wsrf-bf in the xml-schema (only in wsdl). AgreementAcceptanceSchemaTypes: Namespaces wsa and wsrf-bf should be removed since they were not used in the schema. Best regards Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Ziegler www.scai.fraunhofer.de/ziegler.html Fraunhofer-Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing (SCAI) Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany Tel: +49 2241 14 2258; Fax: +49 2241 14 42258 CoreGRID Network of Excellence www.coregrid.net Collaboration Gateway www.coregrid.net/cg Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling www.coregrid.net/irms
Hi: 1)> AgreementSchemaTypes:
wsa-Namespace is not used (should be removed)
OK.
2) wsrf-bf: fault section could be moved to wsdl, therefore eliminating the dependency to wsrf-bf in the xml-schema (only in wsdl).
I am not sure whether below could be moved to wsdl or not. Someone please comment. On the other hand, I remember someone (Karl?)pointing out that we do not need this ContinuingFaultType at all? <!-- ////// fault section --> <xs:complexType name="ContinuingFaultType"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="wsrf-bf:BaseFaultType"/> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name="ContinuingFault" type="wsag:ContinuingFaultType"/> 3)> AgreementAcceptanceSchemaTypes:
Namespaces wsa and wsrf-bf should be removed since they were not used in the schema.
Uh.. do you mean Agreement Acceptance Port Type WSDL or Agreement State Types Schema? Best Regards Toshi. PS will there be a telecon tonight? ----- Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之 Executive Chief Engineer, Central Research Lab. NEC 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60035) Fax +81-44-431-7609 (NEC Internal 22-60509)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-graap-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Ziegler Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:49 PM To: Jim Pruyne; Nakata Toshi; GRAAP-WG Subject: [graap-wg] [Fwd: WSAG Draft]
Dear all,
Here are some comments from my colleague Oliver:
Best regards
Wolfgang
-- Wolfgang Ziegler www.scai.fraunhofer.de/ziegler.html Fraunhofer-Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing (SCAI) Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany Tel: +49 2241 14 2258; Fax: +49 2241 14 42258
CoreGRID Network of Excellence www.coregrid.net Collaboration Gateway www.coregrid.net/cg Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling www.coregrid.net/irms
Dear Toshi, as far as I remember, we decided to re-start the telecons after GGF, so there shouldn't be one tonight. Best regards Wolfgang Toshiyuki Nakata schrieb:
Hi: 1)> AgreementSchemaTypes:
wsa-Namespace is not used (should be removed)
OK.
2) wsrf-bf: fault section could be moved to wsdl, therefore eliminating the dependency to wsrf-bf in the xml-schema (only in wsdl).
I am not sure whether below could be moved to wsdl or not. Someone please comment.
On the other hand, I remember someone (Karl?)pointing out that we do not need this ContinuingFaultType at all?
<!-- ////// fault section --> <xs:complexType name="ContinuingFaultType"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="wsrf-bf:BaseFaultType"/> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name="ContinuingFault" type="wsag:ContinuingFaultType"/>
3)> AgreementAcceptanceSchemaTypes:
Namespaces wsa and wsrf-bf should be removed since they were not used in the schema.
Uh.. do you mean Agreement Acceptance Port Type WSDL or Agreement State Types Schema?
Best Regards Toshi.
PS will there be a telecon tonight? ----- Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之 Executive Chief Engineer, Central Research Lab. NEC 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60035) Fax +81-44-431-7609 (NEC Internal 22-60509)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-graap-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Ziegler Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:49 PM To: Jim Pruyne; Nakata Toshi; GRAAP-WG Subject: [graap-wg] [Fwd: WSAG Draft]
Dear all,
Here are some comments from my colleague Oliver:
Best regards
Wolfgang
-- Wolfgang Ziegler www.scai.fraunhofer.de/ziegler.html Fraunhofer-Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing (SCAI) Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany Tel: +49 2241 14 2258; Fax: +49 2241 14 42258
CoreGRID Network of Excellence www.coregrid.net Collaboration Gateway www.coregrid.net/cg Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling www.coregrid.net/irms
-- Wolfgang Ziegler www.scai.fraunhofer.de/ziegler.html Fraunhofer-Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing (SCAI) Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany Tel: +49 2241 14 2258; Fax: +49 2241 14 42258 CoreGRID Network of Excellence www.coregrid.net Collaboration Gateway www.coregrid.net/cg Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling www.coregrid.net/irms
Hi Toshi, To 2.) The ContinuingFaultType is used in the AgreementFactory and the PendingAgreementFactory. Therefore it could/would make sense to leave it in the schema if it will be present in the final version (I don't know what the opinion of the others to the ContinuingFault topic is). But since the faults are more related to the specific port types respective the definition of its operation than to the Agreement protocol itself, I see the fault definition more in the wsdl files (at least this is just a question of flavor). By the way, in e.g. the wsrf specification they have chosen a different way, they created just separate schema and wsdl-files, where all the wsrf-bf derived custom faults (e.g. ResourceUnknown, ResourceUnavailable) are specified. To 3.) With this I meant the Agreement State Types Schema. WSRF-BaseFaults and WS-Addressing are not referenced in the schema (and should be removed). Best Regards Oliver -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-graap-wg@ggf.org] Im Auftrag von Toshiyuki Nakata Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. August 2006 10:25 An: 'Wolfgang Ziegler'; 'Jim Pruyne'; 'GRAAP-WG' Betreff: RE: [graap-wg] [Fwd: WSAG Draft] Hi: 1)> AgreementSchemaTypes:
wsa-Namespace is not used (should be removed)
OK.
2) wsrf-bf: fault section could be moved to wsdl, therefore eliminating the dependency to wsrf-bf in the xml-schema (only in wsdl).
I am not sure whether below could be moved to wsdl or not. Someone please comment. On the other hand, I remember someone (Karl?)pointing out that we do not need this ContinuingFaultType at all? <!-- ////// fault section --> <xs:complexType name="ContinuingFaultType"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="wsrf-bf:BaseFaultType"/> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name="ContinuingFault" type="wsag:ContinuingFaultType"/> 3)> AgreementAcceptanceSchemaTypes:
Namespaces wsa and wsrf-bf should be removed since they were not used in the schema.
Uh.. do you mean Agreement Acceptance Port Type WSDL or Agreement State Types Schema? Best Regards Toshi. PS will there be a telecon tonight? ----- Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之 Executive Chief Engineer, Central Research Lab. NEC 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60035) Fax +81-44-431-7609 (NEC Internal 22-60509)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-graap-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Ziegler Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:49 PM To: Jim Pruyne; Nakata Toshi; GRAAP-WG Subject: [graap-wg] [Fwd: WSAG Draft]
Dear all,
Here are some comments from my colleague Oliver:
Best regards
Wolfgang
-- Wolfgang Ziegler www.scai.fraunhofer.de/ziegler.html Fraunhofer-Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing (SCAI) Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany Tel: +49 2241 14 2258; Fax: +49 2241 14 42258
CoreGRID Network of Excellence www.coregrid.net Collaboration Gateway www.coregrid.net/cg Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling www.coregrid.net/irms
On Aug 02, Toshiyuki Nakata modulated: ...
On the other hand, I remember someone (Karl?)pointing out that we do not need this ContinuingFaultType at all?
<!-- ////// fault section --> <xs:complexType name="ContinuingFaultType"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="wsrf-bf:BaseFaultType"/> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name="ContinuingFault" type="wsag:ContinuingFaultType"/>
Yes, I said we do not need this. It was introduced when we had a negotiation interface (offers and counter-offers) to distinguish between a problem in one message versus a problem in the resource. A non-continuing fault indicated that the negotation resource was effectively "dead" and no further offers would be accepted in the context of that WS Resource by the party that generated the non-continuing fault. We have no such stateful negotiation in WS-Agreement at this point, AND it seems a pretty sophisticated way to model faults considering we've done so little to model them in every other way... karl -- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@univa.com
participants (4)
-
Karl Czajkowski -
Oliver Wäldrich -
Toshiyuki Nakata -
Wolfgang Ziegler