[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 124 proposal version 2
Hi Anish, On 03/24/2010 02:51 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote: 4BAA8976.1090906@oracle.com" type="cite">Version 2 based on feedback from last week's call is attached. Thanks for spending the time to do that. I've been hoping to find the time to get to that all week, and didn't, so I'm glad you did. 4BAA8976.1090906@oracle.com" type="cite"> Seems sort of ironic, though, if we define this stand-alone protocol, and then it is possible to implement it in a way that is conformant, and yet not compatible with an SCA runtime. Seems to me that we should require the equivalent level of SOAP support, and therefore have the MUST and SHOULD requirements around SOAP. Maybe this is an equivalent nit, but we should likewise require support for HTTP & HTTPS. BWS50010 is sort of tricky. In the context of SCA, if someone uses the @wsdlElement form, then they'd be forced to support the WS-Policy spec, as well as this requirement to recognize this policy assertion when it appears in WSDL. Yet if we step away from that, to this stand-alone definition, what's the conformance target for saying "if your WSCB supports WSDL, then you must support this policy assertion?" Likewise for BWS50013 & 50014. 4BAA8976.1090906@oracle.com" type="cite"> Miscellaneous nit - Sections 6.2 & 6.3 reference Appendix B for "Conformance items related to WSCB...", but that shows up as Appendix C. And in section C, I don't see that you've separated out the conformance requirements for WSCB client and server into a separate section. Two minor editorial nits that I noticed, which Anish's proposal didn't change, per-se: "There are four categories of artifacts for which... SCA WS Binding XML Document ... SCA Runtime" Shouldn't this be (to match the plural form): "There are four categories of artifacts for which... SCA WS Binding XML Documents ... SCA Runtimes" I also don't like the use of "artifact" here, because I associate the word with something less operational than an "SCA Runtime". Can't we just use the phrase: "This specification defines four targets for conformance:" -Eric 4BAA8976.1090906@oracle.com" type="cite"> |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]