[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] the issue on Context type identification
Mark, Eric sent the minutes out to the list on the 6th. Alastair's motion was (US-) tabled Martin. >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] >Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:57 PM >To: Green, Alastair J. >Cc: Newcomer, Eric; ws-caf >Subject: Re: [ws-caf] the issue on Context type identification > > > > >Green, Alastair J. wrote: > >>No, that's a mishearing or a misunderstanding. >> >>It was tabled without objection, i.e. deferred for >consideration at the >>next meeting. >> >> >OK. Like I said, I haven't seen the minutes, which is why I thought it >had been un-tabled. > >Mark. > >>I asked if there was a way of untabling it for an e-vote before the >>F2F, if the e-discussion got far enough to make things clear, and >>Martin felt not. >> >>I was trying to answer your concern about delay, while allowing time >>for the extra consideration to take place. >> >>So, I am still making arguments for my tabled motion, and >hoping others >>will chip in to put me right, or support me, or amend my proposal. >>Hopefully this will allow a rapid resolution right at the >start of the >>F2F. >> >>Alastair >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] >>Sent: 23 June 2005 15:48 >>To: Green, Alastair J. >>Cc: Newcomer, Eric; ws-caf >>Subject: Re: [ws-caf] the issue on Context type identification >> >>I haven't seen the minutes from Monday's call yet, but I thought the >>motion was withdrawn pending further discussion. I seem to recall you >>saying you wanted to "un-table" it (my phrase). >> >>Mark. >> >> >>Green, Alastair J. wrote: >> >> >> >>>We do have a proposal, which is my motion from the last >meeting, which >>>has been tabled. It was, to paraphrase: to have an optional >>>WS-Context-defined context-identifying attribute whose value >is a URI. >>> >>>I moved to table (U.S. English sense) on the grounds that Greg >>>believed (and Kevin disbelieved) that this feature was possible to >>>achieve through existing facilities (attribute extension, if I >>>understood correctly), and that therefore my proposal was moot, >>>unnecessary, redundant etc. >>> >>>On subsequent reflection, I'm not sure that the issue is >>> >>> >>XML-mechanical. >> >> >>>The proposal to have a value which is opaque is important in this >>>proposal. According to me, there are two ways you can do >this. All the >>>parties in a particular contractually-governed interaction can agree >>>that a header element attribute of name N, value type TV means: treat >>> >>> >>as >> >> >>>a context, or you can write that kind of convention down once in a >>>single standard specification, and decide what the value of N and TV >>> >>> >>are >> >> >>>within the standard spec's namespace etc. >>> >>>Contract or statute, if you like. >>> >>>However, I am not an expert in the mechanics of XML, and I've learnt >>>that those who are can throw a different light on these kinds of >>>statements or assumptions by non-experts like me. >>> >>>So I am waiting for someone who is a mechanical expert to >say: "that's >>> >>> >>a >> >> >>>wrong-headed way of posing the problem", or "OK, you are >right to pose >>>the problem in that way: implementation choices do not contradict or >>>alter the overall approach being considered". >>> >>>If the experts say the latter, then I think the statutory >approach is >>>preferable, which is my motion as it stands. >>> >>>This will give Kevin's customers the opportunity to build what he >>> >>> >>wants, >> >> >>>will give Peter's customers the opportunity to build what he wants, >>> >>> >>will >> >> >>>give the sceptics the opportunity to do nothing, and will clear the >>>issue off the table. >>> >>>Procedurally: if the mechanical experts will speak, then >once we have >>>listened to them we can either vote the tabled motion up or down at >>>the F2F, or we can have amendments etc to make counterproposals. >>> >>>Alastair >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] >>>Sent: 23 June 2005 15:09 >>>To: Newcomer, Eric >>>Cc: ws-caf >>>Subject: Re: [ws-caf] the issue on Context type identification >>> >>>I don't think so at the moment, but I'd like to think we could be by >>> >>> >>the >> >> >>>end of the week if we put our heads together and really >drive this as >>>a >>> >>> >> >> >> >>>priority. >>> >>>Mark. >>> >>> >>>Newcomer, Eric wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Are we at the point at which we have one or more concrete proposals >>>>we can vote on? >>>> >>>>Eric >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] >>>>Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 6:36 AM >>>>To: 'ws-caf' >>>>Subject: [ws-caf] the issue on Context type identification >>>> >>>>I'm conscious that there has been very little follow up on the only >>>>outstanding issue we have against WS-Context: whether or not (and >>>>potentially how) we can identify an element within a SOAP >header as a >>>>context. I'd like to encourage people to discuss this via >email before >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>the face-to-face next week so we can close this issue down quickly >>>>and >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>move on to the WS-ACID specification. >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>> >>>>Mark. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > >-- >Mark Little >Chief Architect >Arjuna Technologies Ltd >(www.arjuna.com) > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]