[no subject]

	WS-Context is only useful in association with a referencing
specification

	A referencing specification MUST define at least some behaviour
that has to be implemented by at least one receiver of a <context>

	A referencing specification MAY add syntactic elements to the
<context>, MAY specify additional web-service interfaces that are to be
implemented, MAY define rules for setting and modifying the contents of
<contexts> or MAY do none of these, as necessary for its purposes.

and one could add
	the referencing specification is identified by the context type
uri (or is that protocol-type now ?)

Some of the assertions made about ws-context do not seem to agree with
those. I believe these are either a misinterpretation of "referencing
specification" - the above is effectively a definition of that (replace
by "foo" and re-read) - or are assuming there is text in ws-context that
isn't there.

I'm not sure on any motion yet, as I'm not sure we are agreed on the
above.


Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]=20
> Sent: 28 May 2004 13:21
> To: Furniss, Peter; 'Mark Little'; 'Jim Webber'; 'ws-caf'
> Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF
>=20
>=20
> Ok guys lets try and bring this to a close.
>=20
> Peter, Are you proposing any motion here?
>=20
> Martin.
>=20
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com]
> >Sent: 28 May 2004 12:53
> >To: Mark Little; Jim Webber; ws-caf
> >Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF
> >
> >
> >
> >Mark,
> >
> >> > But you can get them to understand your own ad-hoc=20
> overload of the
> >> > ws-context identifier ?
> >> >
> >> > Do you accept that they will have to implement something
> >> you define ?
> >> > You seem to think WS-Context alone will do it, but it has no
> >> > semantics.
> >>=20
> >> Peter, that is incorrect. Maybe there is a problem with the text
> >> describing this, but I thought we were quite clear in the=20
> 0.2 draft=20
> >> that a context identifier represents an activity which=20
> represents a=20
> >> set of related invocations on (potentially a number of=20
> >different) Web
> >> services. As such, by itself it does have implied semantics:
> >> correlation of invocations. This is precisely what Jim,=20
> >Savas and the
> >> WS-GAF document defined last September (I think). As such,=20
> WS-Context=20
> >> is useful by itself.
> >
> >What does correlation cause to happen ? Something has its
> >behaviour modified by the presence of the WS-Context header or=20
> >there wasn't any point in sending it. Stating that a context=20
> >identifier labels the invocations in an activity means nothing=20
> >unless the activity itself has some  attributes that are known=20
> >among the implementations.
> >
> >
> >Another way of expressing this:
> >
> >a) A SOAP implementation allows access to the headers, and has
> >no constraints on the headers - they can be inspected and=20
> >walked through as xml constructs. (as infoset or raw, as you=20
> >please - infoset only if it can find the schema) Is it an=20
> >implementation of basic WS-Context ?
> >
> >b) The implementation is modified to recognise WS-Context
> >headers, and offers an additional internal api that gives=20
> >access to them via thread-local storage. No deployed=20
> >application uses this new api. Is it an implementation of=20
> >basic WS-Context ?
> >
> >c) the implementation is modified such that if it receives a
> >WS-Context, and the mustPropagate flag is true, and the=20
> >processing resulting from the received message causes any=20
> >outbound soap messages, the WS-Context header is copied=20
> >unchanged to that. Is it now an implementatioan of basic WS-Context ?
> >
> >d) An application using a) or b) includes the context
> >identifier in its access logs, but does nothing else. Is it=20
> >now an implementation of basic WS-Context ?
> >
> >
> >I'm not sure what else can be done with just WS-Context alone
> >- and even
> >d) seems to have some understanding of a specification in=20
> >addtion to WS-Context itself. Anything more (like recognising=20
> >it as a WS-CF context and registering with the coordinator, or=20
> >adding stuff to it) would clearly be implementation of a=20
> >WS-Context-using protocol, not of WS-Context alone.
> >
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >
>=20
>=20