Re: [sca-assembly] [SCA EVENTS] Summary of tentative agreements

[Scott Vorthmann <scottv@tibco.com>]

Martin,

I was afraid that I mis-heard Peter's question to me, and it looks  
like I did.  I'm not in agreement with number 4, and I think I can  
safely say I speak for TIBCO on this.

In my view, the constraints on "wiring" and interface compatability  
should be contingent upon the character of the interface.  For  
example, an interface entirely full of one-way operations (I'll call  
them events) does not require a producer of those events to produce  
any or all of them; it merely guarantees that no *other* events will  
be produced by that producer.

Our current wiring and interface compatibility rules simply make the  
assumption that every interface has at least one request-reply  
operation.

Scott

On Sep 10, 2009, at 6:22 AM, Martin Chapman wrote:

> Here is a summary of what I think we agreed yesterday, and are  
> therefore areas for the TC to explore further.
>
>
>
> Position 1: the current SCA 1.1 model needs tweaking/adding to, to  
> support a pub/sub paradigm.
>
>
>
> Position 2: SCA 1.1 use of WSDL has certain assumptions in  
> assemblers’/developer’s heads (and current tooling), which need  re- 
> examining for pub/sub.
>
>
>
> Position 3: SCA 1.1 wires and wiring may be too restrictive for pub/ 
> sub and need to be relaxed/extended.
>
>
>
> Position 4: We agreed that an assembler looking at SCDL should be  
> able to distinguish between events and one-way requests.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>    Martin.
>
>
>
>
> Martin Chapman | Standards Professional
> Mobile: +353 87 687 6654
>
> ORACLE Ireland
> "Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing  
> this e-mail"
>