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
- From: Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
- To: OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>, sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 11:10:39 +0100
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]