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] Re: Proposed resolution to issue BINDINGS-48


There is a mechanism in the intent FW to indicate that two intents are mutually exclusive.....if we wanted to go that route.

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

Inactive hide details for Simon Holdsworth ---03/12/2009 09:00:20 AM---Dave, that's not the impression I got, however even I'm Simon Holdsworth ---03/12/2009 09:00:20 AM---Dave, that's not the impression I got, however even I'm not sure that we could resolve BINDINGS-48


From:

Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com>

To:

sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org

Date:

03/12/2009 09:00 AM

Subject:

Re: [sca-bindings] Re: Proposed resolution to issue BINDINGS-48






Dave, that's not the impression I got, however even I'm not sure that we could resolve BINDINGS-48 by replacing JMSDeliveryMode attribute by an intent; I think that has to be a separate issue. I don't think there's anything that forces it to be an intent, other than that provides us with a better way of describing conflicts with other intents (?). Mapping that to an intent that allows NON_PERSISTENT to be required would still conflict with atLeastOnce and we'd still need pretty much the same text to be placed somewhere...

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

David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>

11/03/2009 17:52

To
sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
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

Inactive hide details for Simon Holdsworth ---03/11/2009 07:49:53 AM---Folks, I was somewhat surprised by the reaction to my prSimon 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






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










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]