attachment

<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="Street"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="address"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> All,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I have come across a small issue in some of my prototyping of Scan, Print and Resource when trying to co-locate them on a single port.  The issue is a result of moving to a single namespace for all of the MFD.  In a SOAP binding using document/literal encoding, messages are dispatched using the SoapAction or the message name in the body of the request.  The implication here is that all operations across the MFD services must have a unique name or they need to be differentiated by namespace.   Differentiating service operations by namespace changes the fully qualified name of the operations.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> We have common administrative operations such as Pause and Resume.  We also have some common service specific operations such as CreateJob that share a name but differ in the contents of the parameters.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Possible solutions:<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>1)       <![endif]>Change back to multiple namespace approach putting each service in its own namespace.<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>2)       <![endif]>Modify the operation names to include the name of the service in all operations.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Proposed solution:<o:p></o:p> I prefer alternative 2.  Alternative 1 will cause some extensibility point issues and complicates the structure of the WSDL and schemas.  There is some mapping that needs to be done with solution 2 and deployed Web Services (e.g. WS-Scan).   I see no problem with that since a mapping is required even if the unqualified operation names are aligned.  The mapping required is trivial.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If there is no objection, I will make the change before moving to PWG wide Last Call.  If anyone wishes to discuss this at a teleconference I can delay sending the document for PWG wide Last Call.  Please send me a note this week if you to discuss this further.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Comments?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Pete<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Peter Zehler <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Xerox</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Research</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Center</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> Webster Email: Peter.Zehler@Xerox.com Voice: (585) 265-8755 FAX: (585) 265-7441 US Mail: Peter Zehler Xerox Corp. <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">800 Phillips Rd.</st1:address></st1:Street> M/S 128-25E Webster NY, 14580-9701 <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>