OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-assembly message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 33] Updated Proposal for Issue 33



Anish,

Comments inline.

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com



From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
To: Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc: sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org, OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 25/11/2008 06:55
Subject: [sca-assembly] Re: [sca-bindings] Re: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 33] Updated Proposal for Issue 33





Mike,

>I think I agree that you can't really mix
> callbacks and this new "long running" async style of service.

Why not?


<mje> Because it is *&$^%"* complicated, that's why.  </mje>

I think it should be possible.

<mje> Why?  What's the use case?  Just because we COULD do the combination of
function doesn't mean that we should do so - especially if it complicates matters </mje>

asyncInvocation is just a
req-res where the response is sent over a separate connection. This is
independent of callbacks. Yes, it is possible to do a asyncInvocation
using callbacks and one-way operations. But the critical difference here
is that the asyncInvocation consists of only one reply/response.


<mje> I agree.  But why would you want to mix the two mechanisms in one service interface? </mje>

-Anish
--


Mike Edwards wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Comments inline...
>
> Yours,  Mike.
>
> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
> Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
>
>
> From:                  Simon Holdsworth/UK/IBM@IBMGB
> To:                  sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
> Date:                  19/11/2008 11:09
> Subject:                  Re: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 33] Updated Proposal for Issue 33
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> My initial reaction to this is that it conflicts with the existing
> conversational support, although I see that there is a new issue to
> remove that support from the spec.  If that doesn't get accepted, are
> you comfortable with the spec including all of callbacks, conversations
> and async invocations?
>
> *<mje> *
> *I'm not sure what the conflict is, although as you say, this may be a
> moot point.  However, I don't view this "long running" support as being
> much different to callbacks.  I think I agree that you can't really mix
> callbacks and this new "long running" async style of service.  Mixing
> with conversational seems no more complex than mixing conversations with
> callbacks (yes, there is complexity there, I agree).*
> *</mje>*
>
> The text says: "the binding must be able to treat the transmission of
> the request message separately from the transmission of the response
> message, with an arbitrarily large time interval between the two
> transmissions.".  Does that leave space for an implementation to include
> timeouts, or to hold correlation information non-persistently?  Even for
> HTTP some amount of asynchonous invocation is possible, at least from
> the point of view of the interacting components, although the connection
> would be lost if either party terminates or some comms error occurs.
> *<mje>*
> *Not sure I follow your point about HTTP providing "some amount of
> asynchronous invocation" unless you mean that HTTP can wait for a
> limited time for a response - like a small number of minutes.  What I am
> trying to say is that if a service is marked as "long running" then the
> binding CANNOT assume that a "small number of minutes" is going to cut
> it.  The proposal says that the binding MUST assume that the response
> will be a separate transmission at some arbitrarily later time*
> *</mje>*
>
> I'd note that for the web services example given, the non-anonymous
> response URI allows a client of a service to act asynchronously, but it
> does not mean that the service itself will dispatch the request on its
> target component and handle the response asynchronously.
> *<mje>*
> *Not quite sure what point you're making here.  *
>
> *As far as the target component is concerned, the whole point of the
> marking of the interface is that it indicates that the service
> operations are going to be "long running" implying "asynchronous".  For
> the service to be able to do this, the implementation type MUST be able
> to support such a concept - if it can't then tough, you can't implement
> the service in that language.  HOW it is done is up to the
> implementation language specs.  In the examples for Java that are in one
> of the documents that I sent out, there are examples of two alternatives
> - one based on standard Java method calls with responses provided via
> return values in the normal way, the other based on using a callback
> reference to dispatch the response message.  Frankly, the first of these
> depends on the calling thread blocking and waiting at some point which
> is pretty fragile and would not be my choice in most cases.  The second
> way allows for the callback to be stored into a database and retrieved
> at some later point whenever the asynchronous activities complete - much
> more likely to be robust.  *
>
> *Whether other languages can support some style(s) equivalent to these
> is up to the relevant implementation TCs to decide.*
> *</mje>*
>
> Regards, Simon
>
> Simon Holdsworth
> STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair
> MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK
> Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898
> Internet - Simon_Holdsworth@uk.ibm.com
>
> *Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB*
>
> 19/11/2008 10:51
>
>                  
> To
>                  "OASIS Assembly" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
>                  
> Subject
>                  [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 33] Updated Proposal for Issue 33
>
>
>
>                  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
> Here is an updated version of the proposal for Issue 33 following the
> discussion on the call yesterday:
>
>
>
>
> This is the version that I am sending to the other TCs.
>
> Note that the current Assembly specification does not define the
> requirements that bidirectional interfaces place on bindings, so the
> text in this proposal is the first place that this is defined for the
> Assembly specification.
>
>
> Yours,  Mike.
>
> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
> Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> /
> /
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
> [attachment "2008-11-12 - SCA-Assembly Issue 33 - Proposal_2.doc"
> deleted by Mike Edwards/UK/IBM] [attachment "2008-11-12 - SCA-Assembly
> Issue 33 - Java Mapping_2.doc" deleted by Mike Edwards/UK/IBM]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /
> /
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php









Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU








[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]