OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bindings message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Another revision of proposal to resolve issue 54 - #10

I've got some comments on this version of the proposal, mostly style rather than content.  Apologies for rehashing this yet again...

1) For the text:

A binding.ws element MUST NOT contain more than one of the following: Could you interpret that as there shouldn't be more that one uri, and not more than one wsdlElement, etc. rather than not more than one of any of them?  I think "any combination" is clearer that "more than one". In the interest of conformance statement writing I'd actually prefer:

A binding.ws element MUST NOT contain any combination of the @uri attribute, endpointReference element and @wsdlElement attribute referring to either a WSDL port or service.

2) Having done the conformance statement rewriting, I'm not too keen on having a MUST in the @uri part of the following text:

For a reference binding, the SCA runtime MUST apply the appropriate rule from the following, and honor the resulting URI.  If none of these rules are satisfied, the SCA runtime MUST raise an error. and references a wsdl:service element, use one of the URIs for one of the contained wsdl:port elements from the set of available ports as specified  under the definition of the @wsdlElement attribute.

and references a wsdl:port element, then use the URI indicated by the port element

I think we should to rewrite the @uri case as:

If the @uri attribute is present and is an absolute value then use this value for the URI.

3) Should the endpointReference case be defined as having to be absolute (and if not, why not?)

4) The term "honor" seems a bit loose in a conformance statement.  The output of this determination is used at the assembly level to determine what proxies are provided to the calling application.  Is there a more specific term we can use here?  I would suggest something along the lines of "The SCA runtime MUST use the resulting URI to invoke the targetted service" but that won't necessarilty be true.

5) Following what we've done for issue 23, I would actually prefer this to be phrased using the definition of a new term along the following lines:

The target address for a reference binding is defined as one of the following:

If there is no target address for a reference binding, the SCA runtime MUST raise an error.
For a reference binding, the SCA runtime MUST honor the target address.  <-- don't like "honor" here.

Here's a version of the proposal with my changes in it, except for replacing "honor".

Regards, Simon

Simon Holdsworth
STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK
Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898
Internet - Simon_Holdsworth@uk.ibm.com

Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>

20/05/2009 18:47

OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
[sca-bindings] Another revision of proposal to resolve issue 54 - #10

Attached you should find the revised proposal for issue 54 - attempt #10

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:

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]