[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-policy] Suggested wording for POLICY-83
Simon, I apologize for confounding two separate issues. POLICY-83 is really quite simple and I proposed a simple wording change. The issue re. the SOAP intent is quite different and we should separate the two. Let's deal with that in the Bindings TC and convey the result to Policy All the best, Ashok Simon Nash wrote: > Dave, > See inline below. > > Simon > > David Booz wrote: >> Hi Ashok, >> >> Something about this issue was bugging me last night, so I did some >> investigation in the spec this AM. Looking at CD02/PRD, line 1451 (in >> the section which normalizes attached intents into a required intent >> set), I found this statement: >> "and where any unqualified qualifiable intents are replaced with the >> default qualified form of that intent, according to the default >> qualifier in the definition of the intent." >> >> While it doesn't read quite right, the intention is clearly to >> replace unqualified intents with their default qualified form and >> also assumes that there is a default qualifier if there are any >> qualifiers. This usage of default qualifiers was a surprise to me >> (i.e., I forgot about it) as I thought that the default qualifier was >> only used in processing intentMaps in policySets. >> >> I think the words you propose to resolve POLICY-83 are good. >> >> I also want to react to the last statement below: >> >> >> In other discussions re the SOAP intents we have taken the >> position that a default qualifier may not be specified. This is >> contrary to POL30004 and would require a significant change to the spec. >> >> The current SOAP intent definition has "1_1" set as the default >> qualifier. Can you help me understand what discussion you're >> referring to because I might have missed something? The web service >> binding discussions I'm aware of have not suggested changing this >> default. We have been discussing the need to declare the qualifiers >> to be mutually exclusive. >> > The WS Binding spec contains normative text that is incompatible with > SOAP.1_1 being the default qualifier if the unqualified SOAP intent > is used. The following is from section 4.1: > > So as to narrow the range of choices for how messages are carried, > the following policy intents affect the transport binding: > • SOAP > When the SOAP intent is required, the SCA runtime MUST transmit > and receive messages using SOAP. One or more SOAP versions can > be used [BWS40001]. > • SOAP.1_1 > When the SOAP.1_1 intent is required, the SCA runtime MUST transmit > and receive messages using only SOAP 1.1 [BWS40002]. > • SOAP.1_2 > When the SOAP.1_2 intent is required, the SCA runtime MUST transmit > and receive messages using only SOAP 1.2 [BWS40003]. > > Using 1_1 as the default qualifier for the SOAP intent would contradict > the above. This needs to be resolved between the Policy TC and the > Bindings TC. > > Simon > >> 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 ashok malhotra ---05/12/2009 08:24:55 >> AM---Eric pointed out that the existing wording for conformanceashok >> malhotra ---05/12/2009 08:24:55 AM---Eric pointed out that the >> existing wording for conformance statement [POL30004] states: >> >> >> From: >> ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> >> >> To: >> OASIS Policy <sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org> >> >> Date: >> 05/12/2009 08:24 AM >> >> Subject: >> [sca-policy] Suggested wording for POLICY-83 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Eric pointed out that the existing wording for conformance statement >> [POL30004] states: >> "If an intent has more than one qualifier, one and only one MUST be >> declared as the default qualifier." >> and does not cover the case where a single qualifier is declared for the >> intent. See http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-83 >> >> Suggested rewording: >> If an intent has one or more qualifiers, one and only one MUST be >> declared as the default qualifier. >> >> Note that this is an extra-Schema constraint. The Schema provides an >> optional 'default' attribute for the >> qualifier definition in the intent so, according to the Schema, this >> attribute can be omitted for all qualifiers or >> set to 'false'. POL30004 says that this attribute MUST be set to true >> for one and only one of the qualifiers. >> >> In other discussions re the SOAP intents we have taken the position that >> a default qualifier may not be specified. >> This is contrary to POL30004 and would require a significant change to >> the spec. >> >> -- >> All the best, Ashok >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]