sca-bindings 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
- From: Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
- To: sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:19:25 +0000
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]