[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] conformance claims
Dear Greg and others, Well, I am keen to see some text put into the WS-Context specification that tackles the topic of conformance head on, so if "push comes to shove" I will support our text as being much better than nothing. However, I still think that the structure that I offered would have been a better basis. The reason is that it brings out very clearly, by having a heading for each, what sort of things conformance can be claimed for. If you read your text carefully you can spot some of them, but I do think we should be making this into a 'party puzzle'. So my compromise suggestion is that we first agree the list of 'things' for which conformance can be claimed. WE then have those as sub-headings of a conformance section. Then distribute the text you suggest below amongst the sub-headings. My list as a starter for agreement of 'things' for which conformance can be claimed is : Tools (though I think we should say that a tool should support / test for conformance to one of the other classes of conformance) XML documents (Schema and the various WSDL documents) Context Manager Context Response Handler Context service Context service user PS I used the WSDL 2.0 (Core) current draft as the inspiration for my original proposal. Best Regards Tony A M Fletcher Cohesions (TM) Business transaction management software for application coordination www.choreology.com Choreology Ltd., 68 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9LJ UK Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537 Fax: +44 (0) 870 7390077 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219 tony.fletcher@choreology.com (Home: amfletcher@iee.org) -----Original Message----- From: Greg Pavlik [mailto:greg.pavlik@oracle.com] Sent: 10 September 2004 15:03 To: ws-caf Subject: [ws-caf] conformance claims Since there was some discussion that we should have a clear statement of what implementors/users of WS-Context must do, I took the action to do a writeup. Here's some (simple) proposed text for consideration on Monday. My goal is to help us close out this issue asap: WS-Context Conformance Rules The WS-Context specification defines a session model for webservices (the activity concept), a context to represent that model in executing systems, and endpoints to manage context lifecycle and contents. The minimum useage of WS-Context is restricted to the pass by value model of the context structure itself. Conformant implementations MUST follow the rules specified in Section 3; lexical representations of the context must be valid according to the schema definition for ctx:ContextType. All uses of elements derived from the type ref:ServiceRefType MUST include a valid Web service reference based on an identifiable Web services addressing specification. Systems and protocols that leverage the pass-by-reference representation of context MUST support the Context Manager. Conformant implementations of the Context Manager MUST follow the rules stated in Section 4. Context lifecycle demarcation and control is managed by the Context Service. Conformant implementations of the Context Service MUST follow the rules stated in Section 5. All messages based on the normative WSDL provided in this specification MUST be augmented by a Web services addressing specification to support callback-style message exchange. Specifications that build on WS-Context MUST satisfy all requirements for referencing specifications that are identified for contexts, context-services and context managers.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]