[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 87: suggested response to the follow-upcomment
I'm fine with the changes. -Anish -- On 3/25/2010 4:25 AM, Mike Edwards wrote: > > Folks, > > Some comments inline as *<mje>...</mje>* > > In general, I am happy with the response... > > 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: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> > To: OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org> > Date: 24/03/2010 18:47 > Subject: [sca-bindings] Issue 87: suggested response to the follow-up > comment > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Here is my suggested response. Comments are welcome. > > -Anish > -- > > > > On 10/7/2009 9:12 AM, Michael Champion wrote: > > Thank you for considering Microsoft's suggestion for improving the SCA > > Web Services Binding spec's interoperability > > (http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-87). > > > > The TC greatly appreciate Microsoft's comments and the ongoing dialog. > It would be even better, from an interoperability and adoption > perspective, if Microsoft were to participate in the SCA bindings TC and > participate/contribute to the TC's work. > > > We suggested that Web Services callbacks in the SCA Web Services Binging > > spec should interoperate with comparable frameworks such as JAX-WS and > > WCF, and not be limited to various implementations of SCA. This would > > promote the original goals of the Web Services standards to achieve > > wire-level interoperability among diverse run-times and platforms. > > > > There is perhaps a misunderstanding about the SCA Web Services Callback > Protocol. There is *nothing* in the protocol that impedes wire-level > interoperability with frameworks such as JAX-WS and WCF. The protocol > (and the associated WSDL extension, WS-Policy assertion) uses the well > know and well adopted WS-* architecture of composible specifications. It > uses SOAP/WSDL/WS-Policy extensibility/architecture to implement the > callback functionality. Any WS-* stack that allows one to handle > extensibility/composable specification should be able to handle the > protocol. > > *<mje>We can perhaps make a point that the testcase suite is designed to > use* > *JAXWS components to check the conformance of an SCA runtime to the > binding.ws* > *specification* > *</mje>* > > Perhaps you mean "out-of-the-box" interoperability from JAX-WS/WCF. If > so, then that is the decision the implementors/creators of JAX-WS/WCF > have to make. It is not within the scope of this TC. Since Microsoft > owns WCF, it would be up to Microsoft to provide such an > "out-of-the-box" interoperability, and this TC would urge Microsoft to > do so. > > ********** > [This part would be included only if we decide to resolve issue 124 > along the direction that has been discussed recently. If not, this para > will be removed.] > > To that end, the TC has created separate conformance targets/sections > that allows for entities that want to conform to the protocol, but not > necessarily implement an SCA runtime. See resolution of issue 124 [.1] > > [.1] http://osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-124 > > ********** > > > The SCA Binding TC responded by saying that the SCA Web Services binding > > protocol "defines an *SCA* Web service callback protocol standard” and > > that it "is not meant to satisfy general purpose callback requirements > > with a broadest scope possible". In other works, the TC believes that > > the SCA Web Services callbacks will NOT be interoperable with non-SCA > > implementations > > > > That is incorrect. Not defining a protocol that satisfies *every* > possible callback definition and interoperability are orthogonal. > > As mentioned above, SCA Web Services Callback Protocol is interoperable > with non-SCA runtimes as long as they implement the protocol as specified. > > What we meant to say was that: > *<mje>* > *I would prefer to use the phrase: "To clarify what we said previously..."* > *- this does not carry the implication that we did not say want we meant > before...* > *</mje>* > The TC is not interested in boiling the ocean to satisfy every callback > scenario and every possible callback definition. Microsoft's comment was > interpreted by the TC as suggesting that all the callback-related > discussion need to be re-discussed in a separate TC and that we need to > start from scratch. We believe that the SCA callback definition > satisfies the needs of SCA. Furthermore the SCA callback definition is > general enough to satisfy other needs as well. Doing so is well within > the scope of this TC and we believe it is interoperable on the wire. > > This is very similar to what the WS-RX TC [.1] did when it created a > polling specification [.2]. Polling is necessary to implement reliable > messaging when one of the interacting entities is behind a firewall. > They created a specification that is useful for WS-ReliableMessaging as > well as other WS-* implementation that have a need for polling and > choose to use WS-MakeConnection for that purpose. > > [.1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ws-rx > [.2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/200702/wsmc-1.1-spec-os.html > > > The TC's response goes on to say that "This TC does believe that it > > should define an interoperable Web services protocol that implements SCA > > callback and it has done that. It does not believe that it is in the > > scope or interest of this TC to define a callback protocol for all > > architectures and programming models." > > What was meant here (and should have been said) was: > *<mje>* > *Again: "To clarify our previous response:"* > *</mje>* > We believe that we have defined an interoperable callback protocol. It > works for SCA and we believe it works for other architectures and > programming models (SCA is designed ground-up for a multiple programming > model environments). > > If Microsoft believes that the SCA callback definition does not fit > their architecture/programming model, then we respectfully request (and > per our understanding certain members of the TC have in the past) > Microsoft to participate in the TC. No one, including Microsoft, has > brought forward any *specific* architectural or interoperability issues > with the callback protocol definition. > > > We respectfully find this > > statement contradictory, unless the TC defines the term > > "interoperability" in its narrowest form: SCA implementations will only > > be interoperable amongst themselves, and not with other frameworks and > > runtimes. We would find this unfortunate, as OASIS is committed to broad > > interoperability, especially when it comes to use of Web Service wire > > protocols. It would be better to standardize a Web Services callback in > > a separate spec, with the participation of all vendors who build > > platforms and products that support Web Services wire protocols. > > > > Again, we would welcome Microsoft's participating in this TC. > > ********** > [note this paragraph depends on the resolution of issue 124] > > We would also note that the spec now contains conformance requirements > for non-SCA runtimes that would like to implement the protocol and > interoperable on the wire. > ********** > > > It is clear from [1] that the TC is aware that interoperability with > > non-SCA runtimes is an issue. The TC discussed the idea of moving the > > callback portion of the protocol into its own document in order to > > address "the use case of non-SCA clients does walk into the more general > > territory alluded to by MS." We highly recommend that the Binding and > > Assembly TCs work together to design a Web Services Binding spec that is > > interoperable with non-SCA technologies. Without interoperability, > > software developers and users will find it difficult to use SCA in the > > heterogeneous, multi-vendor environments that all our customers live in. > > > > ********** > [note this paragraph depends on the resolution of issue 124] > > Indeed, and the spec has been changed to allow non-SCA runtimes to > conform to the protocol and interoperate on the wire. > *<mje>* > *The specification has been extended to provide specific conformance > statements* > *that provide a definition of what any runtime, including non-SCA > runtimes, would need* > *to do to conform to the protocol and to interoperate on the wire* > *</mje>* > ********** > > > [1] > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34064/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202009-09-03.doc > > > > Regards, > > > > Michael Champion > > > > *From:* Simon Holdsworth [mailto:simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com] > > *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:04 AM > > *To:* sca-bindings-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > > *Subject:* [sca-bindings-comment] Response to: "Microsoft technical > > comment: Develop interoperable approach notspecific to SCA for callbacks" > > > > > > This is a formal response of the OASIS SCA Bindings technical committee > > to the "Microsoft technical comment: Develop interoperable approach not > > specific to SCA for callbacks" which was sent to the SCA Bindings public > > comments list. > > > > This is the agreed response of the technical committee as a whole and > > was approved unanimously at the meeting of the TC which took place on > > September 3rd 2009. > > > > ------------------------ > > > > Thanks for taking the time to review the specification, sending your > > public review comment [1], and for sharing you thoughts. They are much > > appreciated. > > > > The public review comment at [1] suggests that: "... the work of > > defining a Web Service callback standard is best done by the appropriate > > Web Services working groups in OASIS in the broadest scope possible. > > This will foster a general interoperable mechanism for all architectures > > and programming models that use standard Web Services protocols on the > > wire." > > > > There is a misunderstanding on the commenter's part that the SCA Web > > Services Binding defines a (generally applicable) "Web Service callback > > standard." The binding defines an *SCA* Web service callback protocol > > standard that provides the wire-level details for implementing an SCA > > callback defined by the SCA Assembly specification [2]. [2] defines a > > callback mechanism that satisfies the needs of the SCA Assembly model > > and is not meant to satisfy general purpose callback requirements with a > > broadest scope possible. Furthermore, there does not exist any other > > OASIS Web Services Working Group or a Technical Committee that > > specializes in Web Services that has callbacks in its charter scope. > > This TC *does* specialize in Web services and is chartered to produce a > > Web services binding for SCA. > > > > This TC does believe that it should define an interoperable Web services > > protocol that implements SCA callback and it has done that. It does not > > believe that it is in the scope or interest of this TC to define a > > callback protocol for all architectures and programming models. > > > > WRT your comment about SCA Assembly specification Section 7.4, we > > respectfully request you to share that feedback with the SCA Assembly TC > > [3], as the SCA Assembly specification is not owned by and is not in > > scope for this TC. > > > > [1] > > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings-comment/200908/msg00000.html > > > > [2] > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03.pdf > > > > [3] > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=sca-assembly > > > > -------------------------- > > > > Follow-up comments are welcome. > > > > Regards, Simon > > > > Simon Holdsworth > > STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC > Chair > > MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK > > Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898 > > Internet - Simon_Holdsworth@uk.ibm.com > <mailto:Simon_Holdsworth@uk.ibm.com> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > /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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]