Hi,
Paul Harrison reported (http://www.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/ AsynchronousHome/ImplementingUWS-0.1.pdf) on a UWS-0.3 implementation and suggested some changes to the UWS pattern. Here are some responses.
Change the way a job is committed for excution to "post to phase resource". I accept the advantage of the client not addressing the quote object. Would it be better to allow the client to HTTP-put the phase resource? Or HTTP-post with phase=run to the job resource itself?
Extra job state "ABORTED". Yes we could add this. Is there a particular use case that needs it?
Distinguish termination time from destruction time. This could work, but is it really needed? For setting the times, HTTP-put would be preferred.
Error object. I concur. Since the error has its own resource, I guess the service could use an HTML representation if the client accepted such.
Require action=DELETE on job-destruction posts. Accepted; it's a good safeguard.
Composite metadata. I agree with the principle. We need to look very closely at the implementation.
XML and HTML representations. UWS 0.2 did use the stylesheet link to transform in the browser as Paul suggests. I went to the other technique for 0.3 partly to get a comparison and partly to work around some J2EE issues in a quick implementation. I'm happy to go back to client-side transformation for the next draft.
"Reload later" (503) response. I'm not clear when this is to be used. Is it instead of a 404 when an output isn't ready?