[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Documentation need for value of context by value (was RE: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF)
I'm happy with that. Mark. ---- Mark Little, Chief Architect, Transactions, Arjuna Technologies Ltd. www.arjuna.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> To: "Greg Pavlik" <greg.pavlik@oracle.com> Cc: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>; "Green, Alastair J." <Alastair.Green@choreology.com>; "ws-caf" <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 1:03 AM Subject: Documentation need for value of context by value (was RE: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF) > Greg, > > Should have replied earlier. > > Depends on whether the spec has much material on the use and purposes of > ws-context, or just a limited summary of what it is. I think this is a > question (in one of its formulations) that needs to be covered in all > but the shortest explanations. The spec is currently pretty terse, so > it may be appropriate to have this in supporting material. > > Peter > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Pavlik [mailto:greg.pavlik@oracle.com] > > Sent: 27 May 2004 14:17 > > To: Furniss, Peter > > Cc: Mark Little; Green, Alastair J.; ws-caf > > Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF > > > > > > Peter, would it simply be satisfactory to address these questions > > directly in the FAQ or primer? > > > > Furniss, Peter wrote: > > > > >I'll restate the documentation question I raised on this: > > > > > >Does the specification state what are the advantages of using > > >ws-context by-value over and above using a SOAP header with the same > > >application information. > > > > > >Does it state what considerations would lead a designer to choose to > > >define a use of ws-context by-value instead of defining a > > soap header. > > > > > >I don't believe the question (which is quite distinct from > > the question > > >of value OR reference) has ever had a documented answer. It has been > > >discussed (at least in Paris, I'm not sure if it was > > discussed since), > > >but where is the answer ? > > > > > >I raised it as a documentation question precisely because I > > don't want > > >force revisitation if the answer is in fact already well > > known to most > > >of the TC. > > > > > >Peter > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] > > >Sent: 27 May 2004 11:42 > > >To: Green, Alastair J.; ws-caf > > >Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF > > > > > > > > >Alastair, I understand why you may want to revisit this, but > > obviously > > >disagree and don't want the TC process to be unduly stalled. > > I cannot > > >see what adverse effect going forward with the specification as it > > >currently stands has on any referencing specification that > > decides not > > >to use context by value but instead chooses context by > > reference (and > > >vice versa). It does neither impinges on the readability of the > > >specification nor on the understandability IMO. > > > > > >I re-iterate that I believe we have already discussed this > > subject over > > >the past 2/3 months in teleconferences and face-to-face meetings. I > > >don't believe that revisiting it will benefit us or the WS-Context > > >specification at this stage. What it will do is delay the > > adoption of > > >WS-Context by other interested groups and by other referencing > > >specifications (e.g., WS-CF). I see that as a big disadvantage. > > > > > >Mark. > > > > > >---- > > >Mark Little, > > >Chief Architect, Transactions, > > >Arjuna Technologies Ltd. > > > > > >www.arjuna.com > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: Green, Alastair J. <mailto:Alastair.Green@choreology.com> > > >To: Mark Little <mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com> ; ws-caf > > ><mailto:ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org> > > >Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:28 AM > > >Subject: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF > > > > > >Hi Mark, > > > > > >You pointed the list at an interesting document by Savas et al. I > > >commented upon it, as did Peter upon the interop demo, because it > > >illustrates a fundamental issue for any potential user of > > WS-CAF: what > > >is the worth of WS-Context context-by-value? > > > > > >The argument for this feature seems to resemble the motivation for > > >climbing Mt Everest: "because it's there". > > > > > >I don't think that this question can be circumvented, and it is > > >relevant to WS-CF. Should WS-CF have a necessary dependency on > > >WS-Context? After all, WS-Coordination manages to create a generic > > >tree-building > > >(address-exchange) protocol without use of a layer like WS-Context. I > > >think this is a better model. Then those who wish to wrap context > > >information in standard wrappers can do so (use WS-Context), > > and those > > >who don't wish to do so, don't need to (ignore WS-Context as adding > > >little real value). > > > > > >My interest in this is far from academic. If WS-CAF transaction or > > >coordination protocols gain traction at some future date, > > then I would > > >like to make our engineers' lives as easy as possible, by > > streamlining > > >the work needed to the strictly necessary (after all, it > > will only be > > >the third set of two-phase outcome protocols we have to add to our > > >product, in order to accommodate the jostling of the > > software industry > > >majors). I cannot see how WS-Context contributes to WS-CF or WS-TXM. > > > > > >Incidentally, I made no mention of context by reference. I > > view this as > > >an interesting possibility fraught with problems, which I > > predict will > > >not be widely used. Every example of WS-Context use that I see > > >discussed uses "by value". I certainly think that coordination > > >protocols need by-value contexts (which of course can be carried in > > >SOAP headers directly). > > > > > >Alastair > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] > > >Sent: 27 May 2004 10:20 > > >To: Green, Alastair J.; ws-caf > > >Subject: Re: [ws-caf] interesting document > > > > > >Alastair, is this interesting for a purely academic standpoint? I > > >believe that the TC already discussed these issues and voted > > on them, > > >so it seems like going back over old stuff to me. To summarise what > > >this TC already agreed on, since we neither mandate context-by-value > > >nor context-by-reference in the base-line context document, > > it is up to > > >referencing specifications to determine which format they > > wish to use. > > >I think that arguing this again is not going to be fruitful and I'd > > >like to see this TC move on to the coordination specification (which > > >was agreed at New Orleans). > > > > > >Mark. > > > > > >---- > > >Mark Little, > > >Chief Architect, Transactions, > > >Arjuna Technologies Ltd. > > > > > >www.arjuna.com > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: Green, Alastair J. <mailto:Alastair.Green@choreology.com> > > >To: Mark <mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com> Little ; ws-caf > > ><mailto:ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org> > > >Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:03 PM > > >Subject: RE: [ws-caf] interesting document > > > > > >I have to believe I'm missing something or being plain > > stupid, but here > > >goes ... > > > > > >It would be interesting, in light of Peter's recent mail on > > the value > > >of WS-Context context-by-value, to examine what would change > > in these > > >scenarios if the <ctx:context/> were to be replaced by a simple SOAP > > >header element. Strip out <ctx:context/>, replace the placeholder > > >"context state" with <protocol:context/>, place this element in the > > >SOAP header, and proceed. This would be a less restrictive, but I > > >believe legal, use of WS-I (i.e. move protocol-specific context info > > >from body to header). > > > > > >It would also be interesting to consider, in the light of > > Jim and Guy's > > >exchanges, what role activity completion plays, if any? Activity > > >completion can only be communicated to context recipients if > > they are > > >registered with the context service that knows that the > > activity is now > > >complete. WS-Context does not define such a > > registration-notification > > >mechanism. This continues to leave in question the > > independent value of > > >WS-Context context-by-value. This type of functionality must > > reside in > > >the surrounding protocol (session, coordination etc) that in > > my example > > >is denoted by the namespace URI indicated by the prefix > > "protocol" (the > > >"referencing specification"). An example of such a protocol > > is WS-CF, > > >or in truncated form, WS-Coordination. > > > > > >As there is no bundle of contexts specified by WS-Context (if my > > >understanding has kept pace with the spec changes), the > > argument that > > >value is provided by easing interception (simpler to > > identify the group > > >of contexts that must be processed by a set of > > interceptors), becomes a > > >non-argument. > > > > > >Where does this leave the independent value of WS-Context > > >context-by-value? > > > > > >These points are orthogonal to the issue: header element in the raw, > > >body element in the raw, or element embedded in an address. > > > > > >Alastair > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] > > >Sent: 26 May 2004 16:45 > > >To: ws-caf > > >Subject: [ws-caf] interesting document > > >http://forge.gridforum.org/projects/dais-wg/document/draft-gg > f-dais-map > >p > >ings-ggf11/en/1 > > > >And Savas is a member of this TC (though I don't think he's ever > >attended any of the teleconferences ;-) > > > >Mark. > > > >---- > >Mark Little, > >Chief Architect, Transactions, > >Arjuna Technologies Ltd. > > > >www.arjuna.com > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]