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: Proposed resolution to issue BINDINGS-48



Folks,

I was somewhat surprised by the reaction to my proposed resolution to issue BINDINGS-48 "How are mayProvide intents on bindings satisfied " last Thursday.  

My proposal was based on the email from Mike Edwards (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00041.html).

I looked at the resolution to issue POLICY-56 and POLICY-61 and neither states that it is illegal to have an intent in mayProvides that can potentially conflict with binding configuration.  The resolution to POLICY-56 says the following:

If the configured instance of a binding is in conflict with the intents and policy sets selected for that instance, the SCA runtime MUST raise an error. For example, a web service binding which requires the SOAP intent but which points to a WSDL binding that does not specify SOAP.

It does not say that it is illegal to have SOAP in the mayProvides of binding.ws bindingType because of this potential configuration error.

From this I read that it ought to be OK to include SOAP in the alwaysProvides or mayProvides of binding.ws bindingType, but that for a specific configured instance of a binding.ws it is an error for that binding to specify the SOAP intent along with a wsdlElement that points to a non-SOAP binding.

I don't see the difference between that and:

Including atLeastOnce in the mayProvides of binding.jms bindingType, but for a specific configured insitance of a binding.jms it is an error for that binding to specify the mayProvides intent  along with a @JMSDeliveryMode of NON_PERSISTENT

If someone can point me to the policy text that says it is illegal to have an intent in the mayProvides that can potentially conflict with binding configuration I'd appreciate it.

Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong direction.  Another question is: Can an intent require that specific binding properties are set to specific values?  and if so, can you include that intent in @mayProvides?  

Perhaps we are confusing the need to set properties to particular values, with the need to avoid setting properties to particular values...?

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





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]