Re: [sca-bindings] Re: [sca-policy] Re: [sca-bindings] Re: [sca-policy]Suggested wording for POLICY-83

[Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>]

Ugh.

I find myself confused by the entire thread.  To clarify, here are the
scenarios I care about:

Here's my simple notion:  I put binding.ws on a *service*, with a SOAP
intent - not further qualified.

I want it to be possible for the conforming SCA runtime to expose BOTH a
SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 endpoint at the same URI.  That is, I want to
follow in the useful pattern of "being lenient in what I accept, and
strict in what I produce."

For the reference case, when putting a binding.ws on a *reference*, with
a SOAP intent - again, not further qualified - and then pointing at a
WSDL service element, and it contains ports with different versions of
SOAP supported, can the conforming SCA runtime choose any of those
ports?  There may be orthogonal concerns (security), which will
discriminate amongst the available ports, and being forced to use SOAP
1.1 as the default arbitrarily over-constrains the solution, possibly to
the point of error.

Based on Dave's last response, neither of the above scenarios is the
same as "resolving the intent to a binding" based on the the default
qualifier, at least not if an SCA runtime MUST use the default qualifier.

-Eric.

Simon Nash wrote:
> 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: