[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Re: Proposed resolution to issue BINDINGS-48
Hi Simon,
You said:
>> 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.
@alwaysProvides and @mayProvides are different. Your statement above is correct for @mayProvides, but not for @alwaysProvides. @alwaysProvides does not require the application of an @alwaysProvides intent to the binding in order to obtain the behavior.
>>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
I agree with this. The Policy FW rules being discussed are talking about conflicts on binding instances.
>> 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.
I don't believe there is text of this sort....the closest is clearly about instances (line 220 in CD02):
"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. [POL30001]."
I thought the point Mike was making is that we should make NON_PERSISTENT an intent so that it's not possible for the user to hang themselves by inadvertently creating an erroneous binding instance. He should clarify for himself.
Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
Simon Holdsworth ---03/11/2009 07:49:53 AM---Folks, I was somewhat surprised by the reaction to my proposed resolution to
From: | Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com> |
To: | sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org |
Date: | 03/11/2009 07:49 AM |
Subject: | [sca-bindings] Re: Proposed resolution to issue BINDINGS-48 |
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]