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

[Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com>]

Anish,

Would you be able to turn your suggestion
into a more formal proposed resolution?  This is now the only open
issue against the WS binding spec so we need a proposal if we want this
resolved prior to the next CD/PR

Thanks, 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

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
wrote on 04/03/2010 17:05:25:

> [image removed] 
> 
> Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 124: SCA WSCB protocol conformance
> 
> Anish Karmarkar 
> 
> to:
> 
> sca-bindings
> 
> 04/03/2010 17:11
> 
> 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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