Re: [sca-bindings] BINDINGS-118: BWS40005 is ambiguous

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

On 2/11/2010 8:50 AM, Eric Johnson wrote:
> Hi Anish,
>
> On 02/10/2010 08:34 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>> On 2/10/2010 6:02 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
>>> All right, now that it is logged, I can be first to comment....
>>>
>>> This seems obvious to me, and potentially easy to over specify.  The
>>> introductory paragraph to section 4 already spells out possibilities.
>>> Do the possibilities need to be specified as part of the normative
>>> statement?
>>
>> Not necessary to inline it, we could just point to it. The problem I
>> have with the text in section 4 is that it doesn't say that it is an
>> exhaustive list. We are talking about what the runtime MUST do in
>> 40005. The current wordings in section 4 leave enough wiggle room for
>> vendors to create extensions outside the lines that we draw for vendor
>> extensions and get away with it. For example, what if a vendor had a
>> proprietary side file/configuration file that contained default
>> transport details (which were different than what is in 4.2) and no
>> extension in the<binding.ws>  element.
>
> I can think of two answers here.
>
> 1) What you describe is one way of conceiving of policies.  I can just
> define new vendor-specific policy intents, or even just new policies,
> and apply them.  Seems like you can characterize this as "proprietary
> side file/configuration file" if you wish to be pejorative.
>

I think creating new policies, intents, SCA extensions or WSDL 
extensions are just fine. And good ways to innovate through extensions.
What we are trying to do is define the default rules -- rules used when 
nothing else is specified. Nothing else being: extensions, wsdlElement, 
URL, intents, policies. If the default changes from system to system and 
if there are ways to specific an implementation-specific default that is 
transparent to the user, I don't think it helps. For example, if an SCA 
implementation is installed with a SOAP 1.2 flag, whereby the default is 
SOAP 1.2, then there is no way of knowing that by looking at all the 
artifacts in the contribution. I.e., not portable. Furthermore, if we 
have a test for this and run that test against such an impl, it will 
fail, but the creator of the implementation can legitimately say that 
the bug is in the test -- since we leave a huge escape hatch by saying 
'... not otherwise determined ...' in the normative stmt.

> 2) WSDL defined endpoints have the unique characteristic amongst
> everything that we're talking about, in that they can serve as
> compatibility entry points for the universe of non-SCA clients.  So it
> may be very useful for a vendor to allow for customizing the generated
> WSDL in one way or another that isn't really amenable to policy intents,
> although I suppose you could invent a policy description language that
> was sufficiently capable to allow for any flexibility.  We could require
> that vendors must express these customizations in a policy document, but
> that would seem to be a requirement that should be in the assembly or
> policy spec, not in bindings.
>

I don't quite follow this. This is the case where the SCA Binding 
doesn't specify a WSDL binding/service/port. If the vendor doesn't want 
to generate the WSDL per our default rules, the SCDL (or something 
pointed to by the SCDL) has to tell the WSDL generating algorithm how to 
generate the WSDL. Not sure why WSDL's unique characteristics are 
relevant here.

-Anish
--

> -Eric.
>
>>
>> -Anish
>> --
>>
>>>
>>> Is there really an issue here?
>>>
>>> -Eric.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/10/2010 05:56 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
>>>> Logged as: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-118
>>>>
>>>> -Eric.
>>>>
>>>> On 02/10/2010 04:33 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Title: BWS40005 is ambiguous
>>>>>
>>>>> Spec: WS Binding
>>>>>
>>>>> Description:
>>>>> BWS40005 says --
>>>>> "In the event that the transport details are not otherwise determined,
>>>>> an SCA runtime MUST enable the default transport binding rules."
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not clear as to under what conditions the transport details are
>>>>> not otherwise determined
>>>>>
>>>>> Proposal:
>>>>>
>>>>> List the conditions that lead to this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Anish
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>