Re: [sca-bindings] Updated proposal for BINDINGS-54 - proposal rev#8

[Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>]

OK, one more try.

Simon Nash wrote:
> Eric,
> Thanks for doing this.  I think we are getting close now.
> Here are my comments on this draft.
>
> 1. The new normative rule added to the description of the @uri
>    attribute would be better placed at the end of section 2, as
>    it covers not only the @uri attribute but also the @wsdlElement
>    attribute and the endpointReference element.  Also, the words
>    "@wsdlElement attribute referring to a WSDL port" should be
>    changed to "@wsdlElement attribute referring to a WSDL Port
>    or WSDL Service".
Agreed.  Except that the WSDL specification does not capitalize either
"port" or "service", so I've left these lower case.
>
> 2. I'm fine with the intention of the two new paragraphs covering
>    service URIs, but some of the wording in the first paragraph
>    doesn't feel quite right.  For example, it doesn't seem right to
>    say "Unfortunately" as there could be excellent reasons for not
>    using the exact URI specified.  Also, it's suggested that an
>    alternate URI would only be used if it's impossible to honor the
>    specified URI, but there could be cases where it's legitimate to
>    use a different URI even though the specified URI could have been
>    used.  Also, the reference to an "end user's possible surprise"
>    doesn't seem quite right in a spec document, and I'm not sure what
>    "flagging the differences" means.  Here's my attempt to reword
>    this paragraph:
>
>    This specification does not mandate any particular way to determine
>    the URI for a web services binding on an SCA service.  An absolute
>    URI can be indicated by the @uri attribute, by the URI in a
> wsa:Address
>    element within an endpointReference element, or by the URI indicated
>    in a WSDL Port via a @wsdlElement attribute.  Implementations can
>    use the specified URI as the service endpoint URI or they can use a
>    different URI which might include portions of the specified URI.
>    For example, the service endpoint URI might be produced by modifying
>    the specified URI to use a different host name or port number.
I like my text.  Shall we let the TC decide?
>
> 3. Under point 1 in the algorithm for reference URIs, the second
>    sentence is redundant (assuming the change in item 1 above)
>    and should be removed.
Agreed.  The change I made here was to remove the RFC 2119 language.  I
thought it useful to remind the reader.  I've left this as is in my
latest revision.
>
> 4. With the new prohibition on using any combinations of @uri,
>    endpointReference, @wsdlElement/wsdl.port and
> @wsdlElement/wsdl.service,
>    points 1, 2 and 3 of the algorithm for reference URIs are now
>    mutually exclusive.  This means we no longer need to use an
>    algorithm with ordered steps.
I thought about this, and almost changed it with the 07 draft.  Since
you noticed this as well, I've now changed it.
>
> 5. In the wsdl:service sub-bullet of the wsdlElement bullet, change
>    "as specified as under" to "as specified under".
Another entry in my embarrassing litany of typos.  Thanks.

-Eric.
>
>   Simon
>
> Eric Johnson wrote:
>> Updated proposal for bindings 54.
>>
>> Changes:
>>
>>     * Added new conformance statement at the definition of @uri
>>     * Removed proposed conformance statement from the definition of
>>       endpointReference (moved to @uri)
>>     * Section 2.2 - two new paragraphs talking about the treatment of
>>       URIs for bindings on a service.
>>     * (Simon N) - Fixed establishs --> establishes typo
>>     * (Simon N) - Change "as defined as under the definition" to "as
>>       specified under the definition".
>>     * (Simon N) - Change "by port element" to "by the port element"
>>     * (Simon N) - Removed "In both of the above cases, the SCA runtime
>>       MUST raise an error if there is not at least one port compatible
>>       with runtime policies and constraints". This assumes that
>>       resolution to BINDINGS-23 passes.
>>     * Under 2.2, list item #1, replaced sentence - "The @wsdlElement
>>       attribute, if present MUST NOT reference anything other than a
>>       wsdl:binding element" with "The @wsdlElement attribute, if
>>       present, cannot reference anything other than a wsdl:binding
>>       element", as the normative statement is redundant with conformance
>>       statement under @uri.
>>     * (Simon N) - list item #3, removed sentence - "In both of the above
>>       cases, the SCA runtime MUST raise an error if there is not at
>>       least one port compatible with runtime policies and constraints."
>>       - as this is presumed to be redundant subsequent to resolution of
>>       BINDINGS-23
>>     * (Simon N) - Change "reference a URIs" to "a reference URI"
>>     * (Simon N) - Changed the conformance statement at the very end of
>>       section 2.2 to be a "MUST", not a "SHOULD".
>>
>> This completes my action item 20090507-2
>>
>> Special thanks to Simon Nash for catching all the typos in my
>> previous revision.
>>
>> -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 
>
>

sca-binding-ws-1.1-spec-cd02-issue54-proposal-08.doc