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-policy] Suggested wording for POLICY-83



Folks,

Is there really a contradiction here?

Simon is correct in saying that SOAP unqualified does not specify any particular version of SOAP
whereas SOAP.1_1 and SOAP.1_2 imply those particular versions.

However, I don't see there being a problem in declaring a default of "SOAP.1_1" - it does not contradict
the above.

What the default means is that "in the absence of any further information, SOAP unqualified is taken to
mean SOAP.1_1".  There are cases where further information applies...

This give the following kinds of scenario:

1. Binding that supports only SOAP.1_2.
Can happily claim to satisfy intents SOAP and SOAP.1_2
Can't satisfy SOAP.1_1

2. Binding that supports only SOAP.1_3 (a hypothetical future version)
Can happily satisfy intent SOAP
Can't satisfy SOAP.1_1 or SOAP.1_2

3. Binding that supports both SOAP.1_1 and SOAP.1_2
Can happily satisfy intents SOAP, SOAP.1_1 and SOAP.1_2

- however, typically, if only SOAP is specified, then what the binding will actually provide
is SOAP.1_1 - since it's the default.  If the user REALLY wanted SOAP.1_2 then they should
use the SOAP.1_2 intent



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-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 12/05/2009 20:05
Subject: Re: [sca-policy] Suggested wording for POLICY-83





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









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]