[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-policy] Re: [sca-bindings] Re: [sca-policy] Suggested wordingfor POLICY-83
Dave, Thanks, this helps. I understand your interpretation of what the unqualified SOAP intent means now. Let's continue this discussion in the Bindings TC under BINDINGS-73. Simon David Booz wrote: > ...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 > > Inactive hide details for Simon Nash ---05/14/2009 10:31:14 AM---Dave, > Here is an extract from the Policy spec CD02 rev1: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 > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]