[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-policy] Re: [sca-bindings] Re: [sca-policy] Suggested wordingfor POLICY-83
Dave, If an intent of SOAP.1_1 is specified on a service or reference, and the binding specifies a WSDL port that uses SOAP 1.2 only, the SCA runtime MUST raise an error (according to my proposed resolution for BINDINGS-23 which we reviewed last week and I hope we will accept tomorrow). If an intent of SOAP is specified on a service or reference, and the binding specifies a WSDL port that uses SOAP 1.2 only, the SCA runtime MUST use the specified WSDL port (according to my proposed resolution for BINDINGS-23 which we reviewed last week and I hope we will accept tomorrow). This shows that specifying the SOAP intent is not equivalent to specifiying the SOAP.1_1 intent. Simon David Booz wrote: > Simon, > > I don't see how you can come to that conclusion from the quoted text. > The relevant part seems to be the first bullet. The MUST says 'use > SOAP'. That is not inconsistent with the way that the SOAP intent is > currently defined, neither is the "can" in the next line. The intent > definition is going to get you SOAP 1.1 but there's nothing that would > prevent a runtime from also using SOAP 1.2 (remember, only the SOAP > intent was specified in the use case in question so the other two > bullets in section 4.1 don't apply). > > However, I do agree that there could be different interpretations given > the current state of the binding and policy specs. As I've said before, > the Policy TC doesn't care what the definition of the SOAP intent is, > the Policy TC only cares that the Policy FW is able to express the > semantics needed by the various intent use cases in a way that is > consistent through out all the intent use cases. > > What we seem to have here is a difference of opinion in how the intent > FW needs to work, and this is a more serious problem. Default > qualifiers, as currently spec'd by Policy, are intended to convey a > default behavior for unqualified usage of the qualifiable intent (SOAP > in this case). The rationale for this is that it increases portability > from one runtime to another. Without this default behavior, different > runtimes would be free to make different choices which would end up as > subtle errors in ported applications. While intents are still abstract, > the default qualifier feature further narrows the range of semantic > mismatches that might occur between runtimes. > > My recollection of the binding TCs decision on SOAP 1.1 vs SOAP 1.2 is > that we wanted SOAP 1.1 to be the default behavior (I see this embodied > in section 4.2.2), but the words in section 4.1 don't quite say that, so > apparently something subtle has changed and I have missed it (or maybe > section 4.1 could be improved, or 4.2.2 needs fixing - I vote for the > former). > > If the binding TC decides that we really want there to be no default > qualifier for the SOAP intent then: > 1) Binding TC needs to decide this and then formally communicate this to > the Policy TC - If such a decision were made, I'd be happy to take the > AI to inform Policy. > 2) Policy TC needs to decide if can relax the default qualifier rules - > Policy TC would need a sufficient justification from Binding TC and use > case as this is a non-trivial change in the basic FW model. It's not > impossible to change, it's just not trivial as you can see from Issue 83 > in policy which was aiming to simply clarify the existing FW model. > > 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 > > Inactive hide details for Simon Nash ---05/12/2009 03:04:37 PM---Dave, > See inline below.Simon Nash ---05/12/2009 03:04:37 PM---Dave, See inline > below. > > > From: > Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> > > To: > sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org > > Cc: > OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Date: > 05/12/2009 03:04 PM > > Subject: > [sca-bindings] Re: [sca-policy] Suggested wording for POLICY-83 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Dave, > See inline below. > > Simon > > David Booz wrote: > > Hi Ashok, > > > > Something about this issue was bugging me last night, so I did some > > investigation in the spec this AM. Looking at CD02/PRD, line 1451 (in > > the section which normalizes attached intents into a required intent > > set), I found this statement: > > "and where any unqualified qualifiable intents are replaced with the > > default qualified form of that intent, according to the default > > qualifier in the definition of the intent." > > > > While it doesn't read quite right, the intention is clearly to replace > > unqualified intents with their default qualified form and also assumes > > that there is a default qualifier if there are any qualifiers. This > > usage of default qualifiers was a surprise to me (i.e., I forgot about > > it) as I thought that the default qualifier was only used in processing > > intentMaps in policySets. > > > > I think the words you propose to resolve POLICY-83 are good. > > > > I also want to react to the last statement below: > > > > >> In other discussions re the SOAP intents we have taken the position > > that a default qualifier may not be specified. This is contrary to > > POL30004 and would require a significant change to the spec. > > > > The current SOAP intent definition has "1_1" set as the default > > qualifier. Can you help me understand what discussion you're referring > > to because I might have missed something? The web service binding > > discussions I'm aware of have not suggested changing this default. We > > have been discussing the need to declare the qualifiers to be mutually > > exclusive. > > > The WS Binding spec contains normative text that is incompatible with > SOAP.1_1 being the default qualifier if the unqualified SOAP intent > is used. The following is from section 4.1: > > So as to narrow the range of choices for how messages are carried, > the following policy intents affect the transport binding: > • SOAP > When the SOAP intent is required, the SCA runtime MUST transmit > and receive messages using SOAP. One or more SOAP versions can > be used [BWS40001]. > • SOAP.1_1 > When the SOAP.1_1 intent is required, the SCA runtime MUST transmit > and receive messages using only SOAP 1.1 [BWS40002]. > • SOAP.1_2 > When the SOAP.1_2 intent is required, the SCA runtime MUST transmit > and receive messages using only SOAP 1.2 [BWS40003]. > > Using 1_1 as the default qualifier for the SOAP intent would contradict > the above. This needs to be resolved between the Policy TC and the > Bindings TC. > > Simon > > > 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 > > > > Inactive hide details for ashok malhotra ---05/12/2009 08:24:55 > > AM---Eric pointed out that the existing wording for conformanceashok > > malhotra ---05/12/2009 08:24:55 AM---Eric pointed out that the existing > > wording for conformance statement [POL30004] states: > > > > > > From: > > ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> > > > > To: > > OASIS Policy <sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > Date: > > 05/12/2009 08:24 AM > > > > Subject: > > [sca-policy] Suggested wording for POLICY-83 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Eric pointed out that the existing wording for conformance statement > > [POL30004] states: > > "If an intent has more than one qualifier, one and only one MUST be > > declared as the default qualifier." > > and does not cover the case where a single qualifier is declared for the > > intent. See http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-83 > > > > Suggested rewording: > > If an intent has one or more qualifiers, one and only one MUST be > > declared as the default qualifier. > > > > Note that this is an extra-Schema constraint. The Schema provides an > > optional 'default' attribute for the > > qualifier definition in the intent so, according to the Schema, this > > attribute can be omitted for all qualifiers or > > set to 'false'. POL30004 says that this attribute MUST be set to true > > for one and only one of the qualifiers. > > > > In other discussions re the SOAP intents we have taken the position that > > a default qualifier may not be specified. > > This is contrary to POL30004 and would require a significant change to > > the spec. > > > > -- > > All the best, Ashok > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]