[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] BINDINGS-113: What does BWS20006 mean?
I don't know what to say. If we remove the text, the argument which caused us to put it there in the first place will open up again. Whether that viewpoint is valid or not doesn't really matter. I don't want to have that argument again. 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 |------------> | From: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | To: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Date: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |02/11/2010 05:51 PM | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Re: [sca-bindings] BINDINGS-113: What does BWS20006 mean? | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| On 2/11/2010 6:17 AM, David Booz wrote: > At the time the statement was put in, there was a perception (or desire) by > some to insist that such an invocation goes to ALL the ports in the set of > available ports. This statement shuts that debate down. > Indeed. I do remember the debate and the motivation behind the text. I'm focusing on what an invocation means in the WSDL world. An invocation involves calling exactly one method on exactly one WSDL port. If you used two different ports, then you are involved in two different invocations. If you wanted to do some kind of fan-out, then you would create a WSDL binding and associated port which allows you to specify multiple URLs or a multicast address (in the case of UDP) or something like that. I suppose we can put in non-normative text that explains this, but I'm not convinced that (1) we need a normative sentence, (2) the current wording is meaningful > I don't see why you think its untestable. As long as one and only one > invocation msg goes out on any invocation then the requirements of the > statement are met. I can imagine a testcase that has multiple WSDL ports > which if used are valid and would enable an invocation to occur. It seems > a simple matter to wire them to components that can inform a controller > component if they get invoked. It's complicated, but not untestable. > I take that back. I agree it is testable with our tests, where we have control over the invoker and the invokee. I was thinking of the transport/messaging layer and testing at that level, where you can't distinguish between two separate invocation and a single invocation being fanned out on the reference-side. -Anish -- > 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 > > > |------------> > | From: | > |------------> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |Eric Johnson<eric@tibco.com> | > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |------------> > | To: | > |------------> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |Anish Karmarkar<Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> | > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |------------> > | Cc: | > |------------> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |OASIS Bindings<sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org> | > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |------------> > | Date: | > |------------> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |02/10/2010 08:46 PM | > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |------------> > | Subject: | > |------------> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > |Re: [sca-bindings] BINDINGS-113: What does BWS20006 mean? | > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > > > > > Logged as: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-113 > > -Eric. > > On 02/10/2010 04:02 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote: >> Title: What does BWS20006 mean? >> >> Spec: WS Binding >> >> Description: >> BWS20006 says -- >> "When an invocation is made using an SCA reference binding with the >> wsdl.service form of wsdlElement, the SCA runtime MUST use exactly one >> port from the set of available ports for the reference (with port >> selection on a per-invocation basis permitted)." >> >> This is, at the very least, untestable. But I think it is also a >> pointless stmt. If the selection is made on a per-invocation basis, >> and if *an* invocation can involve only one endpoint (which I think it >> does), then this is a redundant statement. It can never be violated, >> but definition. >> >> Proposal: >> >> Remove BWS20006. >> >> >> -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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]