[oslc-core] Unrecognized content

Steve K Speicher sspeiche at us.ibm.com
Tue Sep 18 08:45:46 EDT 2012 

Ian/Frank, I think it is true that reason servers aren't required to 
accept arbitrary content is a bit of a statement to ensure adoption across 
the broadest set of tools.  I believe some of the other motivation is that 
servers may have some logic that won't allow it for what ever reason, 
though an error code would be best in this case.

Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> 
http://open-services.net

> From: Ian Green1 <ian.green at uk.ibm.com>
> To: Frank Budinsky <frankb at ca.ibm.com>, 
> Cc: Oslc-Core at open-services.net, Adam Neal <Adam_Neal at ca.ibm.com>, oslc-
> core-bounces at open-services.net
> Date: 09/11/2012 08:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Unrecognized content
> Sent by: oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> 
> Frank - My recollection is that asking providers to accept all 
properties 
> would hinder adoption.  There may have been other pressures too (I don't 
recall). 
> 
> The issue that Jim describes seems to me to highlight a gap between the 
spec
> and the use cases that we're trying to satisfy.   Creating a link is one 
of 
> the bread-and-butter operations and it seems that the spec makes it 
awkward 
> for clients to establish whether a simple link creation was successful 
or not. 
> 
> best wishes,
>    -ian
> 
> ian.green at uk.ibm.com (Ian Green1/UK/IBM at IBMGB)
> IBM Rational 
> 
> oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net wrote on 07/09/2012 17:07:39:
> 
> > From: Frank Budinsky <frankb at ca.ibm.com> 
> > To: James Conallen <jconallen at us.ibm.com>, 
> > Cc: oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net, Oslc-Core at open-
> > services.net, Adam Neal <Adam_Neal at ca.ibm.com> 
> > Date: 07/09/2012 17:07 
> > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Unrecognized content 
> > Sent by: oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net 
> > 
> > This seems like an odd description anyway. If the server MAY discard
> > property values, shouldn't the spec say that the client MUST assume 
> > that the service will discard ... (as opposed to SHOULD)? There 
> > doesn't seem to be a choice for the client unless it knows the 
> > server implementation (which is bad design practice and would also 
> > require no assuming).
> > 
> > I also wonder why this design was chosen over the more flexible 
> > approach of requiring servers to round-trip properties that they 
> > don't recognize? They can ignore them (i.e., treat them like open 
> > content) but they can't silently throw them away.
> > 
> > Frank.
> > 
> > [image removed] James Conallen ---09/07/2012 11:19:27 AM---Hey 
> > Arthur, The spec for the PUT method says:
> > 
> > From: James Conallen <jconallen at us.ibm.com>
> > To: Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA, 
> > Cc: Oslc-Core at open-services.net, Adam Neal/Ottawa/IBM at IBMCA, oslc-
> > core-bounces at open-services.net
> > Date: 09/07/2012 11:19 AM
> > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Unrecognized content
> > Sent by: oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hey Arthur,
> > 
> > The spec for the PUT method says:
> > 
> > If an existing resource is modified, either the 200 (OK) or 204 (No 
> > Content) response codes SHOULD be sent to indicate successful 
> > completion of the request. If the resource could not be created or 
> > modified with the Request-URI, an appropriate error response SHOULD 
> > be given that reflects the nature of the problem. 
> > 
> > In this scenario the server did not modify the resource, because it 
> > didn't recognize the content. So according to RFC 2616 we should be 
> > returning an error response.
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > jim conallen
> > Rational Design Management (DM) Integration Architect, OSLC AM Lead
> > jconallen at us.ibm.com
> > Rational Software, IBM Software Group
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [image removed] Arthur Ryman ---09/07/2012 10:15:00 AM----1 for the 
> > 400 response code Jim, I don't understand what you are asking for. 
> > The spec already makes
> > 
> > From: Arthur Ryman <ryman at ca.ibm.com>
> > To: James Conallen/Philadelphia/IBM at IBMUS, 
> > Cc: Adam Neal <Adam_Neal at ca.ibm.com>, Oslc-Core at open-services.net, 
> > oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> > Date: 09/07/2012 10:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Unrecognized content
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -1 for the 400 response code
> > 
> > Jim, I don't understand what you are asking for. The spec already 
makes it 
> > clear that the server will discard unrecognized content. The client 
should 
> > expect that. What aspect of behavior is unclear?
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > 
___________________________________________________________________________ 

> > 
> > Arthur Ryman 
> > 
> > DE, Chief Architect, Reporting &
> > Portfolio Strategy and Management
> > IBM Software, Rational 
> > 
> > Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From:
> > James Conallen <jconallen at us.ibm.com>
> > To:
> > Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> > Cc:
> > Adam Neal/Ottawa/IBM at IBMCA
> > Date:
> > 09/07/2012 09:03 AM
> > Subject:
> > [oslc-core] Unrecognized content
> > Sent by:
> > oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > In the current specification we have the statement:
> > For OSLC Defined Resources, clients SHOULD assume that an OSLC Service 

> > will discard unknown property values. An OSLC Service MAY discard 
property 
> > values that are not part of the resource definition or Resource Shape 
> > known by the server.
> > 
> > We are running into a problem. When a client (in this case another 
> > application server) PUTs an update to a resource that includes a 
'link' to 
> > another OSLC resource, and the server, at the time does not recognize 
the 
> > link type, the link is not accepted, but a 200 OK is returned. The 
server 
> > returns a 200 OK, because it feels like it can ignore the unrecognized 

> > link. The client gets that 200 OK, and thinks that the link was 
> > successfully added.
> > 
> > This doesn't feel right. The only way a client can be sure that the 
PUT 
> > worked as expected is to re-GET the resource and compare it to what it 

> > expected to see (with the new link included), and maybe do a little 
> > looking at ETags to make sure things haven't changed in between.
> > 
> > I guess the server could instead return a 400 Bad Request, and include 
in 
> > the response the reason for not accepting the PUT. But if the content 
> > that was submitted really should just be ignored (i.e. is part of a 
future 
> > version of the resource), then we don't want to abort the update.
> > 
> > The OSLC verbage does not provide any guidance as to what to do. It 
would 
> > be helpful if we had more detailed explanation of this statement in 
the 
> > spec.
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > jim conallen
> > Rational Design Management (DM) Integration Architect, OSLC AM Lead
> > jconallen at us.ibm.com
> > Rational Software, IBM Software Group
> > _______________________________________________
> > Oslc-Core mailing list
> > Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Oslc-Core mailing list
> > Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > Oslc-Core mailing list
> > Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
> 
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 
3AU
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Core mailing list
> Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net

More information about the Oslc-Core mailing list