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
- From: Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com>
- To: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:47:30 +0000
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]