Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 124: SCA WSCB protocol conformance

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

On 3/4/2010 5:24 AM, Simon Holdsworth wrote:
>
> Anish,
>
> fwiw my preference is to go ahead and open this issue so we can discuss
> the potential resolution.
>
> In terms of what we say about non-SCA runtimes in your proposed
> solution, it looks like we are defining two new conformance targets, and
> then saying that the SCA runtime must conform to the statements for each
> of these, there's nothing what you say below about stating conformance
> for non-SCA runtimes.

That's what section 6.x and 6.y would do. A WSCB service/client does not 
necessarily have to be an SCA runtime.

> I assume that a non-SCA runtime could then just
> refer to this section in the spec and state that they provide a
> conformant WSCB Client and WSCB Service as defined in the WS binding
> spec section 6.X.

Yes, that's the idea. In any case, that is what I had in mind. There 
might be better ways of dealing with this, but we are getting into 
solution space.

-Anish
--

> I'd be OK with that, as opposed to the WS binding spec
> specifically talking about non-SCA runtimes.
>
> Regards, Simon
>
> Simon Holdsworth
> STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC
> Chair, AT&T and Boeing Lab Advocate
> 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
>
>
> From: 	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
> To: 	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: 	04/03/2010 07:38
> Subject: 	[sca-bindings] Issue 124: SCA WSCB protocol conformance
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Here are the reasons why I think we need to provide WSCB-specific
> targets and conformance statements:
>
> 1) We have relied on WS-* as our route to interoperability when it comes
> to SCA. This is one of the key reasons why WS Binding is required for
> any SCA runtime.
>
> 2) SCA WSCB is a WS-* protocol: it is SOAP/WSDL/Policy based providing a
> functionality on top of those specs.
>
> 3) One of the primary reasons for non-binding.sca is to talk to entities
> outside a domain. Just within a domain the need for non-binding.sca is
> weak at best; after all binding.sca is magic and you can do anything you
> want.
>
> 4) If we want services and references that use bi-directional interfaces
> to be usable from outside the SCA domain, and I'm arguing that we most
> certainly do, then it is important that we say exactly what is required
> from the implementer of the SCA WSCB protocol. A conformance criteria is
> more important for protocols than for systems (like SCA) that focus on
> portability and not interoperability). Experience from other protocol
> standards suggests that achieving interop on the wire is not easy and
> therefore anything that we do to provide clarity wrt conformance would
> greatly enhance interop.
>
>
> One question that was asked on email/previous call was: what would my
> proposal be for resolving this issue. I would suggest something along
> the lines of:
>
> a) add two new targets. Something like WSCB Service and WSCB Client.
>
> b) refactor numbered stmts in section 5 to use these targets where
> appropriate. I don't think this would be too difficult. For example,
> BWS50005 current says:
> "When the service implementation invokes the callback interface, it MUST
> use the Callback EPR from a request message that invoked the forward
> interface."
> this would have to be changed to:
> "When the --> **WSCB Service** <--- invokes the callback interface, it
> MUST use the Callback EPR from a request message that invoked the
> forward interface."
>
> c) Add two new sections 6.x and 6.y for the two new targets (Section 6
> is about conformance) and in those section say " ... to conform the
> target MUST comply with all statements in Appendix C related to ..."
> similar to what we have done for other targets.
>
> d) In section 6.2 SCA Runtime, change bullet 2 and 3 as follows:
>
> "2. The implementation MAY support the SCA Web Services Callback
> Protocol. If it does, it MUST be a compliant WSCB Service and a
> compliant WSCB Client.
> 3. The implementation MAY support the SCA Web Services Callback
> Protocol in conjunction with WS-MakeConnection. If it does, it MUST be a
> complient WSCB Service and compliant WSCB Client and it MUST comply with
> the requirements of WS-MakeConnection."
>
>
> -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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /
> /
>
> /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/
>
>
>
>
>
>