Re: [sca-policy] Re: [sca-bindings] Re: [sca-policy] Suggested wording forPOLICY-83

[David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>]

...sigh...

"If the intent is attached in an unqualified form then any version of SOAP is acceptable."

That statement is simply repeating the meaning of an unqualified but qualifiable intent, i.e. it can always be further qualified by another part of the composite. What does the SOAP intent mean to an assembler that finds it on a service or reference element? It means that he must find a binding that can provide SOAP. Any version of SOAP is fine because the developer did not constrain it. The assembler may have to add the 1_2 qualifier if that's what he wants to provide. If he says nothing, the FW will handle resolving the intent to a binding (or policySet) based on the default qualifier.

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

Simon Nash ---05/14/2009 10:31:14 AM---Dave, Here is an extract from the Policy spec CD02 rev1:

From:	Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>
To:	David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:	sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org, sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	05/14/2009 10:31 AM
Subject:	Re: [sca-policy] Re: [sca-bindings] Re: [sca-policy] Suggested wording for POLICY-83

---

Dave,
Here is an extract from the Policy spec CD02 rev1:

2283 SOAP – The SOAP intent specifies that the SOAP messaging model is used for delivering
2284 messages. It does not require the use of any specific transport technology for delivering the
2285 messages, so for example, this intent can be supported by a binding that sends SOAP
2286 messages over HTTP, bare TCP or even JMS. If the intent is attached in an unqualified form
2287 then any version of SOAP is acceptable.

This text states that the unqualified SOAP intent allows either
SOAP 1.1 or SOAP 1.2 to be used.

Here is another extract from the same spec:

2290             When a SOAP intent is qualified with 1_1 or 1_2, then SOAP version 1.2 or SOAP
2291 version 1.2 respectively MUST be used to deliver messages. [POL100002]

This text states that the qualified intent SOAP.1_1 allows only
SOAP 1.1 to be used, and prohibits the use of SOAP 1.2.

Taking these two statements together, it seems clear that the 1_1
qualifier cannot be the default for the SOAP intent.

   Simon

David Booz wrote:
> Simon,
> 
> I don't see how you can come to that conclusion from the quoted text. 
> The relevant part seems to be the first bullet. The MUST says 'use 
> SOAP'. That is not inconsistent with the way that the SOAP intent is 
> currently defined, neither is the "can" in the next line. The intent 
> definition is going to get you SOAP 1.1 but there's nothing that would 
> prevent a runtime from also using SOAP 1.2 (remember, only the SOAP 
> intent was specified in the use case in question so the other two 
> bullets in section 4.1 don't apply).
> 
> However, I do agree that there could be different interpretations given 
> the current state of the binding and policy specs. As I've said before, 
> the Policy TC doesn't care what the definition of the SOAP intent is, 
> the Policy TC only cares that the Policy FW is able to express the 
> semantics needed by the various intent use cases in a way that is 
> consistent through out all the intent use cases.
> 
> What we seem to have here is a difference of opinion in how the intent 
> FW needs to work, and this is a more serious problem. Default 
> qualifiers, as currently spec'd by Policy, are intended to convey a 
> default behavior for unqualified usage of the qualifiable intent (SOAP 
> in this case). The rationale for this is that it increases portability 
> from one runtime to another. Without this default behavior, different 
> runtimes would be free to make different choices which would end up as 
> subtle errors in ported applications. While intents are still abstract, 
> the default qualifier feature further narrows the range of semantic 
> mismatches that might occur between runtimes.
> 
> My recollection of the binding TCs decision on SOAP 1.1 vs SOAP 1.2 is 
> that we wanted SOAP 1.1 to be the default behavior (I see this embodied 
> in section 4.2.2), but the words in section 4.1 don't quite say that, so 
> apparently something subtle has changed and I have missed it (or maybe 
> section 4.1 could be improved, or 4.2.2 needs fixing - I vote for the 
> former).
> 
> If the binding TC decides that we really want there to be no default 
> qualifier for the SOAP intent then:
> 1) Binding TC needs to decide this and then formally communicate this to 
> the Policy TC - If such a decision were made, I'd be happy to take the 
> AI to inform Policy.
> 2) Policy TC needs to decide if can relax the default qualifier rules - 
> Policy TC would need a sufficient justification from Binding TC and use 
> case as this is a non-trivial change in the basic FW model. It's not 
> impossible to change, it's just not trivial as you can see from Issue 83 
> in policy which was aiming to simply clarify the existing FW model.
> 
> 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 Simon Nash ---05/12/2009 03:04:37 PM---Dave, 
> See inline below.Simon Nash ---05/12/2009 03:04:37 PM---Dave, See inline 
> below.
> 
> 
> From:		 
> Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>
> 
> To:		 
> sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> Cc:		 
> OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> Date:		 
> 05/12/2009 03:04 PM
> 
> Subject:		 
> [sca-bindings] 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 
> 
> 
>