[MOBY-dev] Reminder: Vote async proposal

[Johan Karlsson]

Hi Pieter,

Sorry to hear that you have a negative opinion of the proposal.

 From our point of view, the details you are mentioning are minor (in 
the sense that they are simply choices where to place the information). 
The same information is sent, the number of SOAP calls are the same. It 
is not more (or less) optimal to send the queryIDs in the SOAP header 
than it is to send it in the SOAP body, so we do not understand what you 
mean with "sub-optimal".
 
As we wrote before, it is possible (you agreed with this also earlier) 
to implement a getResourcePropertyDocument operation in the future with 
the approach in the proposal. With only two properties named "status" 
and "result", the structure would be more "fixed", but the values must 
still be put there by the service, so the document is not "static" but 
must be dynamically generated. With dynamic property-names the client 
must construct these names by appending the queryID to status or result 
but this is really, as you put it, far from "rocket-science".

All these details are hidden by API functions (that we are providing), 
so it is not critical to change in the future if necessary.

Kind regards,
Johan


Pieter Neerincx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well, I read the proposal and the involved standards. I think it's  
> very important to have a standard for asynchronous services and the  
> process of getting there already took a lot of time. I also think  
> that such a standard should be very robust and ready for the future.  
> Adding things shouldn't be too much of a hassle, but once we  
> implement this it will be a pain if we have to modify it in such a  
> way that all asynchronous services "break". So I think this standard  
> should be damned good from the start :).
>
> As mentioned before I feel the way the queryIDs are passed around in  
> the XMl is sub-optimal, making asynchronous service behaviour  
> unnecessarily complicated. More explicitly with what I understand  
> from the WSRF standard I'm not comfortable with "dynamic" resource  
> properties (individual resource properties for status / fetching  
> results for each individual queryID). Therefore - although I like the  
> big picture - I vote NO on the current proposal.
>
> I will support any proposal that gets accepted for the sake of  
> interoperability as this is paramount for BioMOBY, but I would prefer  
> a more elegant solution.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pi
>
> On 2-Oct-2006, at 3:14 PM, Martin Senger wrote:
>
>   
>> Well, I am still not sure that I understand the proposal fully (not  
>> because
>> it is a bad proposal but because I have  not spent enough time on  
>> it). But I
>> believe fully in the wisdom of our Spanish colleagues, the wisdom I  
>> hope to
>> learn when I will be implementing the async behaviour in Moses) - and
>> therefore I vote YES.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> -- 
>> Martin Senger
>>    email: martin.senger at gmail.com
>>    skype: martinsenger
>> _______________________________________________
>> MOBY-dev mailing list
>> MOBY-dev at lists.open-bio.org
>> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/moby-dev
>>     
>
>
> Wageningen University and Research centre (WUR)
> Laboratory of Bioinformatics
> Transitorium (building 312) room 1034
> Dreijenlaan 3
> 6703 HA Wageningen
> The Netherlands
> phone: 0317-483 060
> fax: 0317-483 584
> mobile: 06-143 66 783
> pieter.neerincx at wur.nl
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MOBY-dev mailing list
> MOBY-dev at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/moby-dev
>