sca-bindings message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Updated proposal for BINDINGS-54 - proposal rev #9
- From: David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>
- To: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 14:32:50 -0400
1. I much prefer Simon's text from [1] for the 1st paragraph in section 2.2.
2. There's a formatting problem at the end of section 2.2.
3. I prefer the term "SCA runtime" (which is used everywhere) to just plain "runtime" on line 294. "For a reference binding, the SCA Runtime..."
[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200905/msg00047.html
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
Eric Johnson ---05/19/2009 09:57:01 AM---Attempt #9, addressing the concerns the Simon raised. Simon Nash wrote:
From: |
Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com> |
To: |
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> |
Cc: |
OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org> |
Date: |
05/19/2009 09:57 AM |
Subject: |
Re: [sca-bindings] Updated proposal for BINDINGS-54 - proposal rev #9 |
Attempt #9, addressing the concerns the Simon raised.
Simon Nash wrote:
> Eric Johnson wrote:
>> OK, one more try.
>>
>> Simon Nash wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
> >
> I think the third bullet makes this extrememly clear. Having the
> same information twice in the same list seems more confusing to me.
I've made the edits as you suggested.
>
>>> 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.
> >
> I don't think we still need the reference to "first step"
> before the bullets. It's also no longer appropriate to refer to
> "above steps" after the bullet. We should be able to collapse the
> text before and after the bullet into a single normative rule, as
> follows:
>
> For a reference binding, the SCA runtime MUST apply the appropriate
> rule from the following, or raise an error:
>
> <the bullets follow>
I've changed this around, although I did not employ your exact wording.
-Eric.
(See attached file: sca-binding-ws-1.1-spec-cd02-issue54-proposal-09.doc)---------------------------------------------------------------------
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-09.doc
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]