Re: [sca-bindings] Re: Proposed resolution to issue 54, attempt #5

[David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>]

We also need a better definition of 'runtime policies and constraints'. That could be interpreted vaguely in order to give a runtime an excuse to introduce a different behavior. Do we have some positive and negative examples?

Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com

Mike Edwards ---03/24/2009 08:12:19 AM---Folks, I'm not sure that my 2 points have really been addressed - or to put it

From:	Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
To:	"OASIS Bindings" <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	03/24/2009 08:12 AM
Subject:	Re: [sca-bindings] Re: Proposed resolution to issue 54, attempt #5

---

Folks, 

I'm not sure that my 2 points have really been addressed - or to put it another way, I'm still confused about what is supposed to 
happen for the cases that I discussed. 

1) Lines 308 - 310 now say:

"In some cases the URI determined by previous steps is relative to the structural URI for either an SCA service or binding. In case of such a URI, the runtime SHOULD combine the relative URI with an absolute deployment target URI."

a) this seems to imply that the structuralURI contributes to a URI for a reference. I can't see how this can be the case, looking at the steps for the reference URI. I suggest moving this sentence to follow the service URI steps.
b) it introduces the concept "absolute deployment target URI" - where is this defined and described? As a whole, it seems very vague.

2) <service.> bullet 3

The implication is that there can be >1 URI - is this supposed to say that if >1 URI is there, then the service is exposed on EACH URI (ie multiple times). If so, this should be stated explicitly.

3) <reference> bullet 3

I am very unclear about what is supposed to happen if there a multiple port elements when the @wsdlElement reference is to a service element.
It looks as if you end up with a collection of URIs - are you expected to use just ONE of them (and the runtime can choose which one any way it likes)
or is the idea that you have multiple targets and you use them all (OK for multiplicity 0..n and 1..n references but an error for 0..1 and 1..1).


Yours, Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From:	Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To:	Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	20/03/2009 23:46
Subject:	Re: [sca-bindings] Re: Proposed resolution to issue 54, attempt #5

---

Hi,

Attached is attempt #5 at revising issue 54.

There's a good chance that I will not be in next week's call - I'm attending a conference.  As a result, I would much prefer feedback sooner rather than later, so that I can take a shot at another revision if there are still concerns.

I believe I addressed both of Mike's concerns below, as well as the discussion points raised in the conference call.

-Eric.

Mike Edwards wrote: 

Folks, 

Comments: 

1) Regarding the URI for a <service/>. 

Points #1 and #4 refer to the structural URI for a service. 
I think that this needs clarifying at least.  The Assembly spec makes it clear that  a structural URI is a relative URI. 
The way things are worded in this proposal seems to imply that it is absolute.  It is certainly not clear how the structural URI 
becomes the absolute URI for a Web service. 

2) Regarding the URI for a <reference/> 

Point #3 says "use the URI indicated by any contained wsdl:port element" 
If there are multiple port elements, each may have a different URI - is the runtime free to choose any one of these? 


Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From:	Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To:	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	11/03/2009 22:02
Subject:	[sca-bindings] Re: Proposed resolution to issue 54, attempt #4

---

Oops - forgot to incorporate comments from Mike E.

Attempt #4 attached.

-Eric.

Eric Johnson wrote:
> Attached.  Integrates all of Simon N.'s concerns, I think.
>
> -Eric.
>
> P.S. My apologies for missing the meeting today.  I forgot to put an
> entry on my calendar for the unusual meeting, and it was all downhill
> from there.
>   
[attachment "sca-binding-ws-1.1-spec-cd02-issue54-proposal-04.doc" deleted by Mike Edwards/UK/IBM] ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

---

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

[attachment "sca-binding-ws-1.1-spec-cd02-issue54-proposal-05.doc" deleted by Mike Edwards/UK/IBM] ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 

---

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