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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bindings message

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

Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] ISSUE-48: How are mayProvide intents on bindingssatisfied

OK, now that I've logged the issue, I'm going to argue for why we
shouldn't open it.

Eric Johnson wrote:
> Logged as: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-48
> -Eric.
> ashok malhotra wrote:
>> The SCA Policy spec says that in addition to the intents that a
>> bindingType alwaysProvides
Point #1.1 - The first item in the description flags that other work
might be appropriate for other TCs first.
>> "... The binding type also declares the intents that it may provide by
>> using the optional @mayProvide attribute. Intents listed as the value
>> of this attribute can be provided by a binding instance configured
>> from this binding type."
Point #1.2 - Still seems to be relevant only to the policy specification.
>> My assumption was that, to use some of the mayProvide intents, a
>> binding instance had to be configured outside of SCA and then that
>> instance used for some service/reference. At last week's Policy f2f,
>> it became clear that this assumption was not universally shared. Some
>> thought that the SCA runtime would configure the binding instance
>> during the deployment phase.
Point #2.1 - Looking through the existing specifications, the notion of
a binding "instance" is discussed only in passing for the binding.ws
spec, and not at all in binding.jms or binding.jca.  The concerns raised
in the above paragraph don't seem to have much bearing on the binding
specifications that I see.

>> I looked at the binding.ws, the binding.jca and the binding.jms specs
>> and found that, as expected, binding.ws says nothing about mayProvide.
>> Binding.jca does not say anything about mayProvides either.
>> Binding.jms says
>> <bindingType type=”binding.jms”
>> alwaysProvides=”jms” mayProvide=”atLeastOnce atMostOnce ordered
>> conversational”/>
Aha! Finally, something specific to one of the binding specifications. 
Perhaps a glimmer of an issue?  Except:

Point #3 - As stated the above doesn't actually raise an issue.  JMS
spec is clearly different from the other two, but is this one right, and
the others wrong?  I'm lacking in specifics to understand.  Further, as
issues editor, in I need to know whether this should be raised as one,
two, or three issues, and I still cannot tell.
>> but it does not say how the mayProvides intents are satisfied. That
>> is, it does not say what configuration parameters can used to provide
>> these intents.
>> Thus, two requests
>> - Clarify whether the binding instances configured to provide the
>> capabilities indicated in mayProvides are generated separately,
>> earlier and outside of SCA and then used in the SCDL or whether they
>> are generated by the SCA runtime.
Point #2.2 - Again, the notion of binding "instances" seems to lie
outside of the binding specifications.  Bindings specifications at this
point do not talk about "generating" anything for runtime, except the
binding.ws spec, which talks about WSDL.
>> - As far as possible, indicate in the bindings specs which
>> configuration parameters need to be tweaked and how to satisfy the
>> mayProvide intents.
Point #4 - the term "configuration parameters" leaves me completely
muddled - Is this something specified via policy? Does it appear in the
composite file?  Is it data that is part of the binding elements? 
Further the notion of "tweaking" those "configuration parameters" sounds
interesting, but leaves me completely in the dark as to what you think
might be appropriate.

This issue certainly has piqued my curiosity, and I suspect there is a
very important issue to raise here related to one or more of the binding
specifications, but I still flailing in a fog as to what that specific
consideration might be.  I would much prefer to see a new issue filed
that identifies precisely which text in which specification(s) is
problematic, why it is problematic with respect to issues already
resolved in other TCs or the text of the other specifications, and
hopefully even a suggested resolution.

I'm also certainly happy with the notion that this is a topic of
discussion as an agenda item, but that simply isn't the same as an issue
to be raised.


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