Based on my comments below, I've written up another proposal. This
time around, I'm just punting on determining a URI for a service.
-Eric.
Eric Johnson wrote:
4A01EC15.8050701@tibco.com" type="cite">
Mike raises a question which I don't know how to resolve:
Mike Edwards wrote:
[snip]
1) Lines 308 - 310 now say:
"In some cases the URI determined by
previous steps is relative to the structural URI for either an SCA
service
or binding. In case of such a URI, the runtime SHOULD combine the
relative URI with an absolute deployment target URI."
[snip]
b) it introduces the concept
"absolute
deployment target URI" - where is this defined and described? As
a whole, it seems very vague.
I really don't know what to suggest here, in that I agree that it is
vague. I had thought that Assembly had some tighter language around
some notion of a deployment URI, but after just reviewing, I don't see
it.
I'm left with a few options, and the last one I felt like I should add,
just because specifying a URI for a service at the time you're
composing a composite is rife with issues.
Options:
- Attempt to define what a deployment target URI would be.
- Vaguely state that the structural URI should be used in
constructing the actual deployment URI.
- Leave it completely to the implementation to decide what to do
with a URI, relative or absolute
- Forgo any attempt to specify how a URI is determined for a
service.
My attempts at issue 54 have so far have attempted (mostly) to keep
what I perceived as the original intent, which allowed for specifying
the URI of a service as part of the design-time configuration.
However, recognizing that a URI known when constructing a composite may
have no relationship to an actual deployed environment, it is extremely
difficult to say how to honor that URI. For example, if the URI
indicates "http", but there's a policy intent that effectively dictates
HTTPS, what do we do? Is our spec:
- Treating this as an error?
- Encouraging implementations to alert users to the discrepancy?
- Mum on the point?
I note, in contrast to what we're currently doing with binding.ws, that
section 8.4 of the assembly spec, when discussing binding.sca, says "If
the binding @uri attribute is specified on a service, it is ignored."
I'm almost ready to throw in the towel, because I don't see that we can
tightly define this in a sensible way. For services, I'd suggest
adding text on the order of this:
In determining the URI for a service, implementations are encouraged to
attempt to honor the value(s) of @uri attribute, the URI in a
wsa:Address element from an endpointReference, the URI indicated by
WSDL port via a @wsdlElement attribute references, and the structural
URI for the binding.
Comments?
-Eric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|