[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE-22: The Bindings specifications should provide exemplary Implementations for a) Callbacks and b) Conversations
I don't think we need a callback intent in order to tell that a callback
is required. We can tell it based on the fact that the interface has a
corresponding callback interface. If a binding is used on a service
with a callback interface, and that binding cannot handle callback
support, it will generate an error, e.g. "Can't use binding.foo here
because binding.foo doesn't support callbacks."
Whether a binding can support callbacks or not can be part of its
documentation. I don't yet see any value in formalizing this bit of
documentation.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: David Booz [mailto:booz@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 5:31 PM
To: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE-22: The Bindings specifications should
provide exemplary Implementations for a) Callbacks and b) Conversations
We already have @Callback(<interface>). We could just decide that it's
an
intent, like @Integrity or @Conversational.
The problem we have with intents in the SCDL is that they aren't
parameterizable.....this is not the first time the Policy TC has
stumbled
over this problem.
Dave Booz
STSM, SCA and WebSphere Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
http://washome.austin.ibm.com/xwiki/bin/view/SCA2Team/WebHome
Mike Edwards
<mike_edwards@uk.
ibm.com>
To
"OASIS Bindings"
02/22/2008 09:35
<sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
AM
cc
Subject
RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE-22: The
Bindings specifications should
provide exemplary Implementations
for a) Callbacks and b)
Conversations
Sanjay,
My thought had been to use @requires("callback") in an interface
definition
(say) to mark the
fact that a callback interface is required to go along with the first
interface. This might be useful)
in Java, for example, where the forward and callback interfaces are
necessarily separate artifacts.
However, I don't feel strongly about this use case.
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
"Patil, Sanjay"
<sanjay.patil@sap.
com>
To
Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "OASIS Bindings"
22/02/2008 00:56 <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE-22: The Bindings
specifications should provide exemplary
Implementations for a) Callbacks and b)
Conversations
One question inline below ...
From: Mike Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 8:15 AM
To: OASIS Bindings
Subject: RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE-22: The Bindings specifications should
provide exemplary Implementations for a) Callbacks and b) Conversations
Peter,
Interesting question - and an interesting answer too.
1) For conversational, since this is an intent, a bindingType simply
must
list the "conversational" intent in its
@alwaysProvides or @mayProvide attribute - if @mayProvide, then there
needs
to,
also be a PolicySet which contains a policy which provides the
"conversational"
intent.
2) For callback, we have a problem. There is no intent "callback" at
the
moment. Callbacks are defined by
various mechanisms, but none of them are intents.
So, there is no obvious mechanism by which a bindingType can indicate
that
it supports callbacks.
Perhaps we should invent a new intent "callback" and then also define
that
it is "automatically" set whenever
there is other metadata that indicates that there is a callback
interface -
it can also be specified explictly using
the @requires attribute. If that is done, then a bindingType can
indicate
its support as for conversational.
<Sanjay> Under what circumstances would it be useful to specify the
'callback' intent via the @requires attribute (and not depend upon the
interface to express that there exists a callback) </Sanjay>
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
"Peshev, Peter"
<peter.peshev@sap.c
om>
To
"Eric Johnson" <eric@tibco.com>, Mike
21/02/2008 16:02 Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc
"OASIS Bindings"
<sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject
RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE-22: The Bindings
specifications should provide exemplary
Implementations for a) Callbacks and b)
Conversations
Hi,
just a question about that issue, how a binding should declare the
support
or lack of support of those features. Is it by intents "Callbackable" ,
"Conversational" , "NotSupportedCallback" , etc. ?
Peter
From: Eric Johnson [mailto:eric@tibco.com]
Sent: Monday, 4. February 2008 21:45
To: Mike Edwards
Cc: OASIS Bindings
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] ISSUE-22: The Bindings specifications should
provide exemplary Implementations for a) Callbacks and b) Conversations
Logged as http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-22
-Eric.
Mike Edwards wrote:
Raiser: Mike Edwards
Target: Web Services Binding specification, JMS Binding
Specification, JCA Binding Specification
Description:
At present, it is not clear which, if any, of the Bindings
specifications
enable the implementation of two important
features of SCA described in the Assembly specification - namely
Callback
interfaces and Conversational
interfaces.,
Each of the Bindings specifications should explicitly declare if it is
possible to support each of these features.
For each of the Bindings specifications that claim to support either or
both of these features, the specification
should provide a full description of at least one exemplary
implementation
of the feature using the Binding
technology described in the specification. Multiple alternative
implementations are permitted and may be
added to the specification.
For example, it may be possible to implement Callbacks using
WS-Addressing
capabilities with Web services.
If so, and example, showing the use of appropriate features of
WS-Addressing and other relevant WS-*
capabilities should be added to the specification. If an alternative
exists using (say) WS-Context, then an
example based on that technology can also be provided.
Proposal:
None at present.
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. You may a link to this group and 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
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. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]