Re: [sca-bindings] NEW ISSUE: Non_Persistent Should be an Intent

[Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>]

Hi Ashok,

If you don't mind, it would be helpful for the record if you would
resend your email in standard new issue format:

Target:

Description:

Proposal:

... so that it is clearer what we're discussing, voting on, etc.

-Eric.

ashok malhotra wrote:
> On todays call, we resolved to close issue
>
> www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-48
> <http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-48>  with the proposal
> contained in
>
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200903/msg00005.html
> The last para of this proposal reads:
> "Deployers/assemblers can configure NON_PERSISTENT
> for @JMSDeliveryMode in order to provide higher performance with a
> decreased
> quality of service. A binding.jms element configured in this way cannot
> satisfy the "atLeastOnce" policy intent. The SCA runtime MUST
> raise an error for this invalid combination at deployment time."
>
> The reason that this constraint needs to be expressed in English
> rather than more formally is because "atLeastOnce" is a policy intent
> whereas "NON_PERSISTENT" is a configuration parameter.  If both were
> policy intents we could write a mutually exclusive constraint for them.
>
> Thus, I would recommend that NON_PERSISTENT be turned into an intent.
> In general, as I argued on the call, configuration parameter should
> translate
> to intents.  Dave Booz pushed back on this, saying that WsdlElement in
> WS Binding
> should not be an intent.  But, perhaps, this is the exception rather
> than the
> rule.
>
>