[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] NEW ISSUE: Non_Persistent Should be an Intent
Hi Ashok, If you don't mind, it would be helpful for the record if you would resend your email in standard new issue format: Target: Description: Proposal: ... so that it is clearer what we're discussing, voting on, etc. -Eric. ashok malhotra wrote: > On todays call, we resolved to close issue > > www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-48 > <http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-48> with the proposal > contained in > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200903/msg00005.html > The last para of this proposal reads: > "Deployers/assemblers can configure NON_PERSISTENT > for @JMSDeliveryMode in order to provide higher performance with a > decreased > quality of service. A binding.jms element configured in this way cannot > satisfy the "atLeastOnce" policy intent. The SCA runtime MUST > raise an error for this invalid combination at deployment time." > > The reason that this constraint needs to be expressed in English > rather than more formally is because "atLeastOnce" is a policy intent > whereas "NON_PERSISTENT" is a configuration parameter. If both were > policy intents we could write a mutually exclusive constraint for them. > > Thus, I would recommend that NON_PERSISTENT be turned into an intent. > In general, as I argued on the call, configuration parameter should > translate > to intents. Dave Booz pushed back on this, saying that WsdlElement in > WS Binding > should not be an intent. But, perhaps, this is the exception rather > than the > rule. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]