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] BINDINGS-118: BWS40005 is ambiguous

Hi Anish,

On 02/10/2010 08:34 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> On 2/10/2010 6:02 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
>> All right, now that it is logged, I can be first to comment....
>> This seems obvious to me, and potentially easy to over specify.  The
>> introductory paragraph to section 4 already spells out possibilities.
>> Do the possibilities need to be specified as part of the normative
>> statement?
> Not necessary to inline it, we could just point to it. The problem I
> have with the text in section 4 is that it doesn't say that it is an
> exhaustive list. We are talking about what the runtime MUST do in
> 40005. The current wordings in section 4 leave enough wiggle room for
> vendors to create extensions outside the lines that we draw for vendor
> extensions and get away with it. For example, what if a vendor had a
> proprietary side file/configuration file that contained default
> transport details (which were different than what is in 4.2) and no
> extension in the <binding.ws> element.

I can think of two answers here.

1) What you describe is one way of conceiving of policies.  I can just
define new vendor-specific policy intents, or even just new policies,
and apply them.  Seems like you can characterize this as "proprietary
side file/configuration file" if you wish to be pejorative.

2) WSDL defined endpoints have the unique characteristic amongst
everything that we're talking about, in that they can serve as
compatibility entry points for the universe of non-SCA clients.  So it
may be very useful for a vendor to allow for customizing the generated
WSDL in one way or another that isn't really amenable to policy intents,
although I suppose you could invent a policy description language that
was sufficiently capable to allow for any flexibility.  We could require
that vendors must express these customizations in a policy document, but
that would seem to be a requirement that should be in the assembly or
policy spec, not in bindings.


> -Anish
> -- 
>> Is there really an issue here?
>> -Eric.
>> On 02/10/2010 05:56 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
>>> Logged as: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-118
>>> -Eric.
>>> On 02/10/2010 04:33 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>>>> Title: BWS40005 is ambiguous
>>>> Spec: WS Binding
>>>> Description:
>>>> BWS40005 says --
>>>> "In the event that the transport details are not otherwise determined,
>>>> an SCA runtime MUST enable the default transport binding rules."
>>>> It is not clear as to under what conditions the transport details are
>>>> not otherwise determined
>>>> Proposal:
>>>> List the conditions that lead to this.
>>>> -Anish
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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]