Guys, +1 to you both.
So I take it this
makes yet another proposal for i021, essentially Paul’s proposal here
without the changes fro line 101 and 108-111 that introduce the wsrmp:Optional.
Is that right?
From: Christopher B
Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006
10:24 AM
To: Ashok Malhotra
Cc: Paul Fremantle; wsrx
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] slightly new
i021 proposal
+1
Christopher
Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295
"Ashok
Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 03/08/2006 12:54:21
PM:
> Thanks, Chris. You agree with....
>
> > If
a server attaches <RM optional = 'true'> to an output message
> > it says that the message may or may not
be transmitted reliably.
> > The client may or may not be prepared to
accept the message reliably.
>
> but then I argued that this is not a problem.
The server and
> client, thru some process of policy
>
comparison, can figure out whether the msg shd be sent reliably or not.
>
> Do you
agree with this?
> All the
best, Ashok
>
>
> From: Christopher B Ferris
[mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:24 AM
> To: Ashok Malhotra
> Cc: Paul Fremantle; wsrx
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] slightly new i021
proposal
>
> Ashok,
>
> +1
>
> and especially:
>
> > If a server attaches <RM optional =
'true'> to an output message
> > it says that the message may or may not
be transmitted reliably.
> > The client may or may not be prepared to
accept the message reliably.
>
> which I think confirms that what I was trying
to convey with my
> proposal is consistent with
> your understanding of the semantics of
wsp:Optional.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> phone: +1 508 377 9295
>
> "Ashok Malhotra"
<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 03/07/2006 10:11:22 PM:
>
> > Paul:
> > Thank you for trying to ferret out the
confusion.
> >
> > My understanding of wsp:optional is a
bit different and I
> > don't think we need to define our own
optional semantics.
> >
> > If you attach wsp:optional = 'true' to
an output message
> > you are saying that that message may or
may not be transmitted
> > reliably. In WS-Policy terms this
means that there will
> > be a policy option created that will
transmit that message reliably
> > and an option created that will not
transmit the message reliably.
> > Both policy options are equally valid
and which option is chosen
> > depends on what the client and server agree
on.
> >
> > If a server attaches <RM optional =
'true'> to an output message
> > it says that the message may or may not
be transmitted reliably.
> > The client may or may not be prepared to
accept the message reliably.
> > There needs to be communication between
the client and server to
> > determine whether the message is
transmitted reliably or not.
> > This may take the form of policy
intersection or negotiation.
> > But at the end of it the server and the
client will agree on whether
> > the message shd be transmitted reliably
or not.
> >
> >
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Fremantle
[mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:36
AM
> > > To: wsrx
> > > Subject: [ws-rx] slightly new i021
proposal
> > >
> > > Firstly, before anyone (or Umit)
ticks me off, this is not MY
> > > proposal.
> > > It is in effect an amalgam of
previous proposals.
> > >
> > > Secondly, the intent of this
proposal is to effectively take
> > > the previous proposal from Sanjay,
amended by Chris, and make
> > > one key change. The change is for
us to define our own model
> > > of what "optional"
> > > means. The reason is that I think
that if we have the
> > > wsp:Optional marker on output
messages it has an unintended
> > > consequence that it implies the
Service Client can and should
> > > support RM.
> > >
> > > I see this policy being used in the
following ways.
> > >
> > > 1) simply mark a whole endpoint
optional. RM can be used on
> > > either path or not without problems
> > > 2) mark a whole endpoint
non-optional. RM must be used on all
> > > interactions.
> > > 3) mark the endpoint optional and
certain messages with
> > > optional markers. This is a way
expressing a preference that
> > > these messages are delivered
reliably. For example, mark all
> > > input messages optionally reliable.
> > > 4) mark the endpoint optional and
certain messages
> > > non-optional. This expresses that
these specific messages
> > > MUST be delivered reliably. One
valid approach to this is to
> > > deliver all messages reliably.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Based on WSRMP WD06/CD3
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In section 2.2 change:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Replace Line 101 with :
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <wsrmp:RMAssertion
[optional="true"]? ... >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Replace lines 108-111 with
> > >
> > >
/wsrmp:RMAssertion/@wsrmp:optional="true"
> > >
> > > The behavior indicated by the
assertion is optional - that
> > > WS-ReliableMessaging MAY or MAY NOT
be used. The attachment
> > > of an assertion marked optional
does not imply that either
> > > the service client or service
provider implements either or
> > > both an RMD or an RMS, and if no
sequence is available, the
> > > interaction SHOULD continue
unreliably.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Replace the entire content of
section 2.3 (Assertion
> > > Attachment) in the WS-RM Policy
specification with the following:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The RM policy assertion is allowed
to have the following
> > > Policy Subjects
> > > [WS-PolicyAttachment]:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Endpoint Policy Subject
> > >
> > > Message Policy Subject
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WS-PolicyAttachment defines a set
of WSDL/1.1 [WSDL 1.1]
> > > policy attachment points for each
of the above Policy
> > > Subjects. Since an RM policy
assertion specifies a concrete
> > > behavior, it MUST NOT be attached
to the abstract WSDL policy
> > > attachment points.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The following is the list of
WSDL/1.1 elements whose scope
> > > contains the Policy Subjects
allowed for an RM policy
> > > assertion but which MUST NOT have
RM policy assertions attached:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > wsdl:message
> > >
> > >
wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input
> > >
> > >
wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output
> > >
> > >
wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault
> > >
> > > wsdl:portType
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The following is the list of
WSDL/1.1 elements whose scope
> > > contains the Policy Subjects
allowed for an RM policy
> > > assertion and which MAY have RM
policy assertions attached:
> > >
> > > wsdl:port
> > >
> > > wsdl:binding
> > >
> > > wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input
> > >
> > >
wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output
> > >
> > >
wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If an RM policy assertion is
attached to any of:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *
wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input
> > >
> > > *
wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output
> > >
> > > *
wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > then an RM policy assertion,
specifying optional=true MUST be
> > > attached to the corresponding
wsdl:binding or wsdl:port,
> > > indicating that the endpoint
supports WS-RM. Any messages,
> > > regardless of whether they have an
attached Message Policy
> > > Subject RM policy assertion, MAY be
sent to that endpoint
> > > using WS-RM. Additionally, the
receiving endpoint MUST NOT
> > > reject any message belonging to a
Sequence, simply because
> > > there was no Message Policy Subject
RM policy assertion
> > > attached to that message.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If the RM policy assertion appears
in a policy expression
> > > attached to a wsdl:binding as well
as to the individual
> > > wsdl:binding level message
> > >
definitions(wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input,
> > >
wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output,
> > >
wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault), any parameters or
> > > extensibility elements in the
former MUST be used and the
> > > latter ignored.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If the RM policy assertion appears
in a policy expression
> > > attached to a wsdl:port as well as
to the other allowed
> > > WSDL/1.1 elements, any parameters
or extensibility elements
> > > in the former MUST be used and the
latter ignored.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Paul Fremantle
> > > VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX
TC Co-chair
> > >
> > >
http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf
> > > paul@wso2.com
> > >
> > > "Oxygenating the Web Service
Platform", www.wso2.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >