[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 021 - WS-C: Split out 002 d) -- Avoid normative statements on timing of sub-coordinator registration
This escaped from my outbox before I'd checked it. It should say that is issue 021, as in the subject line - but the subject line should refer to issue 002. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@choreology.com] > Sent: 21 December 2005 15:07 > To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [ws-tx] Issue 021 - WS-C: Split out 007 d) -- Avoid > normative statements on timing of sub-coordinator registration > > > > This is hereby identified as ws-tx issue 019. > > Please follow up to this message or otherwise ensure your > subject line starts "Issue 019 - " > (after any Re:, [ws-tx] etc) > > Alastair pointed out his original message referred to 007 > when it should have said 002. I have corrected the > misreferences below. > > ============================================== > > Issue name -- WS-C: Split out 002 d) -- Avoid normative statements on > timing of sub-coordinator registration > > Target document and draft: > > Protocol: Coord > > Artifact: spec > > Draft: > > Coord spec working draft uploaded 2005-12-02 > > Link to the document referenced: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15738/WS-Coo rdination- > 2005-11-22.pdf > > Section and PDF line number: > > Section 3 "Coordination Service", ll. 181-209 > > > Issue type: > > Design / editorial > > > Related issues: > > 002, 018, 019, 020 > > > Issue Description: > > This issue separates out sub-issue d) of Issue 002, which can be found > here: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/email/archi ves/200512 > /msg00059.html > > Avoid normative statements on timing of sub-coordinator registration. > > > Issue Details: > > [This issue stems from Choreology Contribution issue TX-17.] > > The initial part of Section 3 (up to and inluding the diagram, Figure > 2., on p. 10) uses an example to convey three things: > > a) the basic interactions of a registering application > service and a > > Registration Service, and their > relationship to Coordinators and Participants > > b) the notion of an interposed Coordinator, and > > c) some seemingly normative rules relating to how interposed > coordination works. > > On the last point: There are two statements, which are too > restrictive > -- or perhaps which seem too > restrictive because they are actually intended only as > examples of one > possible use of the protocol, but > appear to have normative weight because there are no other > statements at > > all in the specification about the > behaviours being discussed. > > The second of these statements is contained within the following > call-out which refers to the diagram. The statement is > flagged with the > inserted tag [Statement 2]. > > ll. 204-206 > > "5. [Statement 2] This registration causes CoordinatorB > to forward > the registration onto CoordinatorA's > Registration service RSa, exchanging Endpoint References > for Yb and > the protocol service Ya. This forms a > logical connection between these Endpoint References that the > protocol Y can use." > > The practice of having a subcoordinator delay registration with its > nominated superior coordinator until it > first receives registration(s) from Participant(s) is viable, given > certain rules. So is the practice of > eagerly registering subcoordinators as they are created. The > lazy/eager > choice is not the property of WS- > Coordination, and the spec should make it clear that subcoordinator > registration time is not defined. > > > Proposed Resolution: > > Remove any normative statement relating to the timing of > sub-coordinator > > registration, other than to state > that the sub-coordinator must be registered to take part in activity > completion. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]