[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 124 proposal version 2 - a comment
On 3/25/2010 4:42 AM, Mike Edwards wrote: > > Folks, > > I'd like to pick up on something Eric mentions in his email below: > > " In the context of SCA, if someone uses the @wsdlElement form, then > they'd be forced to support the WS-Policy spec" > > > I find it surprising that the SCA binding.ws specification does not > REQUIRE support of the WS-Policy specification. > > This is particularly the case given that the spec defines a WS-Policy > policy. > This is an excellent issue to raise. But I think this is independent of the fact that the spec defines a policy assertion. The reason I think this is independent is because support for that policy assertion or the protocol associated with the assertion is optional. > > So: Should we raise an issue to add a conformance requirement that a > binding.ws implementation MUST support the WS-Policy > specification (although not any specific policy assertions other than > the one defined within the binding.ws spec).? > > > Yours, Mike. > > Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO. > Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC. > IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain. > Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431 > Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com > > > From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com> > To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> > Cc: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org > Date: 25/03/2010 05:59 > Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 124 proposal version 2 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Hi Anish, > > On 03/24/2010 02:51 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote: > Version 2 based on feedback from last week's call is attached. > > * Fixed editorial bugs pointed out by EricJ in section 6. > > * I did some due diligence on the question of whether creating > independent conformance points for WSCB service/client results in a > problem (as pointed out by EricJ), since the other non-section5 > conformance items are no longer applicable to WSCB service/client. I > found 5 assertions that are somewhat related (noted below). The others > are about binding.ws syntactic elements/attributes or something similar. > > 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. > > > a) there is MUST for SOAP 1.1 and a SHOULD for SOAP 1.2. Section 5 also > talks in several places about SOAP header blocks. Strictly speaking > there is no necessity to require SOAP (1.1 or 1.2) for this protocol. It > could depend only on WS-Addressing. But that is a separate issue. To fix > this, I have changed the intro to 5.1 to state that this is a > soap/ws-addressing based protocol. I didn't see a reason to introduce > assertions for requiring SOAP/WS-A. It is required by definition. But if > ppl feel strongly we can introduce new conformance items. > > 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. > > > b) There is a requirement for conforming to SCA assembly and policy. I > don't think this is needed (it would defeat the purpose of the issue > itself). > > c) There is a SHOULD for http endpoints to provide a wsdl description > when queried with ?wsdl and a SHOULD for non http endpoints to provide > some way to obtain the WSDL descriptions. I didn't see a need to have > this requirement on WSCB service/client endpoints. I see this as a SCA > runtime requirement not a protocol requirement. > > * wrt Dave's comment about BWS5005/7, I'm not sure what needs to change. > I added a sentence at the beginning of section 5.1 that says that WSCB > service implements the forward interface and the WSCB client implements > the callback interface. > > Comments? > > 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 > > > -Anish > -- > > On 3/18/2010 9:01 AM, Anish Karmarkar wrote: > Proposal for issue 124 as outlined in [1] is attached. > > -Anish > -- > > [1] > _http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/201003/msg00000.html_ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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_ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]