[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 2 proposal v12
Mike Edwards wrote: > > Folks, > > Comment 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 Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> > To: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org > Date: 03/04/2009 15:05 > Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 2 proposal v12 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > David Booz wrote: > > Thanks Anish, > > > > I agree that the URI (and the assertion NS) are independent, and in no > > way did I intend to mean that either of them be kept in sync with future > > assembly namespace URI changes. It clear that they have independent > > lifecycles from Assembly NS and from each other. It was purely a > > suggestion and I'm fine either way. For someone with an organized mind > > like myself, it looks odd to start out with different URIs, but maybe > > that's just me. > > > > 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 Anish Karmarkar ---04/02/2009 07:11:01 > > PM---Thanks Dave. I will send a new version (v13) shortly afteAnish > > Karmarkar ---04/02/2009 07:11:01 PM---Thanks Dave. I will send a new > > version (v13) shortly after incorporating your and > > > > > > From: > > Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> > > > > To: > > sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > Date: > > 04/02/2009 07:11 PM > > > > Subject: > > Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 2 proposal v12 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Thanks Dave. > > I will send a new version (v13) shortly after incorporating your and > > SimonN's changes. > > > > Responses to your word comments: > > > > 1) DAB: These sentences just don’t read correctly, can we start them > > with ‘If’ ? > > > > I have made that (added 'if') change. > > I think the whole paragraph can be made better (we can use if-then-else > > and remove a 'MUST'), but at this stage I would rather not make any > changes. > > > > 2) DAB: Should we update this to match the current namespace? > > > > This comment is for the wsa:RelatesTo/@RelationshipType attribute value > > URI. This URI value has nothing to do with our NS URI, in principle. We > > *could* make it the same as our NS URI. It would be easier to remember > > just one. But I don't think we should change it in the future if the NS > > URI changes but the semantics of the protocol don't (or vice versa). > > This may lead to some confusion (if people expect them to be in sync), > > if the NS URI changes in the future. Furthermore, I would rather see a > > URI that is completely under the control of this TC rather than the > > assembly TC. Overall I tend to lean towards saying that we should keep > > this URI independent of our NS. > > > > 3) DAB: How can ‘right after’ ever work? > > > > You're correct, this is a problem. It is important for the listener case > > that the listener be ready before or at the same time the forward > > request is made. In the listener case, a connection failure may be > > treated by the service as fatal. For the polling case 'right after' is > > ok. I have changed the words for the listener case to say: 'before or at > > the same time'. > > > "At the same time" seems to be logically (or logistically) impossible. > With most computers, one action occurs either before or after > another action. If actions truly do occur at the same time, it > would be by amazing coincidence rather than deliberate intention. > > Simon > *<mje>* > *I'm struggling to see why we are making such a meal of this. I think I > said it clearly on* > *the last call that the requirement is:* > > *The callback endpoint must be in existence no later than the point where* > *the client application code has invoked a forward operation on the > reference and before* > *the binding code transmits this invocation on the wire to the service.* > +1 for this wording. Simon > *The distinction between the application code and the binding > implementation puts* > *the responsibility cleanly onto the binding implementation code.* > *</mje>* > > > 4) DAB: We should move to the 200903 schema level that assembly is on. > > > > This refers to the NS for the policy assertion. > > In most, though not all, I expect this assertion to be used independent > > of the composite file (in WSDLs/external attachments). I don't have a > > strong opinion on this, but a mild preference to keep it independent of > > the main assembly NS. I see the use of this assertion on the edges of > > the domain and for interoperability across vendors/clients. Having the > > ability to evolve this without the need to rev assembly NS (or vice > > versa) would be good. > > > > -Anish > > -- > > > > David Booz wrote: > > > Comments in this document. Turn off all reviewers but me to see > all the > > > changes, some are editorial where I changed the text directly > instead of > > > making Word comments. > > > > > > /(See attached file: SCA-bindings-issue2-proposal-v12_dab.doc)/ > > > > > > 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 Anish Karmarkar ---04/02/2009 02:01:10 > > > AM---Attached. I believe I included all the changes agreed to Anish > > > Karmarkar ---04/02/2009 02:01:10 AM---Attached. I believe I > included all > > > the changes agreed to from last week. > > > > > > > > > From: > > > Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> > > > > > > To: > > > OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > > > Date: > > > 04/02/2009 02:01 AM > > > > > > Subject: > > > [sca-bindings] Issue 2 proposal v12 > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > Attached. > > > I believe I included all the changes agreed to from last week. > > > > > > The only quibble that I have with the wordings is that it talks about > > > 'binding on the reference-side'. Since this is expected to be used at > > > the edges of the domain, it is preferable to not talk about > 'references' > > > but instead say something like 'binding on the client-side' or 'the > > > invoker's binding'. > > > > > > -Anish > > > -- > > > [attachment "SCA-bindings-issue2-proposal-v12.doc" deleted by David > > > Booz/Poughkeepsie/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 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]