[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021
Marc Goodner wrote: > Just expanding on the subject level, from section 4.1.2 on Endpoint > Policy Subject in WS-PolicyAttachment [1]: > > > > “An Endpoint Policy Subject applies to behaviours associated with an > entire endpoint of > > the service, irrespective of any message exchange made.” > Not a policy expert, but my interpretation is that I don't think that precludes us from defining assertions that apply to only in messages or out-message. WS-PolicyAttachment framework defines a framework, but the assertion definer defines the semantics of the assertion. I.e., it should be ok to say that my BAZ assertion means that only in-bound messages are reliable -- and that applies to the entire endpoint (irrespective of the message exchanges or operations). Having said that. I don't think Gil's proposal goes far enough. Yes, it works quite well for the most common case (one-way, request-response). But when we go to WSDL 2.0, this looks rather short-sighted. It seems to me that the policy assertion subject should be 'message' -- which provides the granularity that provides the most flexibility. After all we are talking about reliable messaging. My $.02 -Anish -- > > > To me that seems to say we can’t declare that it doesn’t apply to > inbound or outbound messages that are part of the endpoint. If that is > what you want you would use operation level subject. I still think > endpoint subject is what you would almost always want, but we’ve been > talking about this long enough that I can see a case for operation. > > > > 1 http://specs.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/policy/ws-policyattachment.pdf > > > > Marc Goodner > > Technical Diplomat > > Microsoft Corporation > > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:35 PM > *To:* Marc Goodner; Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021 > > > > Comments in line . . . > > > > - gp > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:10 PM > *To:* Patil, Sanjay; Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021 > > Two immediate concerns I have here. > > > > One, I don’t think it is right to say the AS and AD have to use RM. > It is the RMS and RMD that use RM so I think the original text is > correct. I also don’t see how this relates to the multiple endpoints > via one RMS/RMD as you say below. In that case isn’t the original > text still more accurate? Still either way this is probably > splitting hairs, it doesn’t change that the assertion is there or > what it means. > > > > The RMS and RMD don't **use** RM they **implement** RM. They are the > things that implement the protocol described in the WS-RM spec. When > you are talking about describing policy in something like WSDL you > are indicating if/how you will make use of the facilities that the > RMS and RMD provide. > > > > Two, I don’t think even with two different assertions we can define > them to apply just to inbound or outbound messages. I’m fairly > certain that WSDL 1.1 and WS-PolicyAttachment prevent that scoping. > > > > I'm not sure I understand why this would be the case. Can you expand? > > > > Marc Goodner > > Technical Diplomat > > Microsoft Corporation > > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 01, 2006 7:27 AM > *To:* Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021 > > > > > > Thanks to Gil for making a concrete proposal. Hopefully this leads > to a discussion on the list. > > > > I have changed the subject line to indicate the issue number. I > think folks have better memory of issue numbers than AI numbers. > > > > Thanks, > > Sanjay > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, Jan 31, 2006 23:01 PM > *To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* [ws-rx] RE: Action Item #0078 > > In light of the (pending) resolutions to i086 and i087 it seemed > simpler to present my proposal in the form of complete drafts of > the WS-RM Policy specification. Attached are two PDF documents. > One is a clean version of what the WS-RM Policy spec would look > like with my proposed changes. The other contains change bars > between my proposal and the current editors draft of WS-RM > Policy (cd-02 with Marc's clean ups applied). > > > > You will note that my proposal includes the proposed resolutions > to i086 and i087. There was no simple way to present my ideas > without doing this. > > > > You may also note that I have changed line 93 from: > > > > "The RM policy assertion indicates that the RM Source and RM > Destination MUST use WS-ReliableMessaging [WS-RM > <outbind://153/#WSRM>] to ensure reliable delivery of messages." > > > > to: > > > > "In general a RM policy assertion indicates that the Application > Source and Application Destination MUST use WS-ReliableMessaging > [WS-RM <outbind://153/#WSRM>] to ensure reliable delivery of > messages". > > > > I did this because I think that policy assertions have nothing > to do with sequences or the entities that maintain them (i.e. > the RMS and RMD) except that they indicate that some, > unspecified sequence may or must be used to ensure the delivery > of inbound or outbound messages. I think this confusion over > endpoints (and the policies attached to those endpoints) and > sequences lay at the heart of our difficulties with the idea of > multiple endpoints with different policies sharing the same > sequence. This change may be considered by some to be the > resolution to a separate issue. If anyone has any objections > I'll back it out and go through the process of raising a > separate issue and making a separate proposal to address it. > > > > - gp >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]