Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 87: suggested response to the follow-upcomment

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

I'm fine with the changes.

-Anish
--

On 3/25/2010 4:25 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Some comments inline as *<mje>...</mje>*
>
> In general, I am happy with the response...
>
> 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: 	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
> To: 	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: 	24/03/2010 18:47
> Subject: 	[sca-bindings] Issue 87: suggested response to the follow-up
> comment
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Here is my suggested response. Comments are welcome.
>
> -Anish
> --
>
>
>
> On 10/7/2009 9:12 AM, Michael Champion wrote:
>  > Thank you for considering Microsoft's suggestion for improving the SCA
>  > Web Services Binding spec's interoperability
>  > (http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-87).
>  >
>
> The TC greatly appreciate Microsoft's comments and the ongoing dialog.
> It would be even better, from an interoperability and adoption
> perspective, if Microsoft were to participate in the SCA bindings TC and
> participate/contribute to the TC's work.
>
>  > We suggested that Web Services callbacks in the SCA Web Services Binging
>  > spec should interoperate with comparable frameworks such as JAX-WS and
>  > WCF, and not be limited to various implementations of SCA. This would
>  > promote the original goals of the Web Services standards to achieve
>  > wire-level interoperability among diverse run-times and platforms.
>  >
>
> There is perhaps a misunderstanding about the SCA Web Services Callback
> Protocol. There is *nothing* in the protocol that impedes wire-level
> interoperability with frameworks such as JAX-WS and WCF. The protocol
> (and the associated WSDL extension, WS-Policy assertion) uses the well
> know and well adopted WS-* architecture of composible specifications. It
> uses SOAP/WSDL/WS-Policy extensibility/architecture to implement the
> callback functionality. Any WS-* stack that allows one to handle
> extensibility/composable specification should be able to handle the
> protocol.
>
> *<mje>We can perhaps make a point that the testcase suite is designed to
> use*
> *JAXWS components to check the conformance of an SCA runtime to the
> binding.ws*
> *specification*
> *</mje>*
>
> Perhaps you mean "out-of-the-box" interoperability from JAX-WS/WCF. If
> so, then that is the decision the implementors/creators of JAX-WS/WCF
> have to make. It is not within the scope of this TC. Since Microsoft
> owns WCF, it would be up to Microsoft to provide such an
> "out-of-the-box" interoperability, and this TC would urge Microsoft to
> do so.
>
> **********
> [This part would be included only if we decide to resolve issue 124
> along the direction that has been discussed recently. If not, this para
> will be removed.]
>
> To that end, the TC has created separate conformance targets/sections
> that allows for entities that want to conform to the protocol, but not
> necessarily implement an SCA runtime. See resolution of issue 124 [.1]
>
> [.1] http://osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-124
>
> **********
>
>  > The SCA Binding TC responded by saying that the SCA Web Services binding
>  > protocol "defines an *SCA* Web service callback protocol standard” and
>  > that it "is not meant to satisfy general purpose callback requirements
>  > with a broadest scope possible". In other works, the TC believes that
>  > the SCA Web Services callbacks will NOT be interoperable with non-SCA
>  > implementations
>  >
>
> That is incorrect. Not defining a protocol that satisfies *every*
> possible callback definition and interoperability are orthogonal.
>
> As mentioned above, SCA Web Services Callback Protocol is interoperable
> with non-SCA runtimes as long as they implement the protocol as specified.
>
> What we meant to say was that:
> *<mje>*
> *I would prefer to use the phrase: "To clarify what we said previously..."*
> *- this does not carry the implication that we did not say want we meant
> before...*
> *</mje>*
> The TC is not interested in boiling the ocean to satisfy every callback
> scenario and every possible callback definition. Microsoft's comment was
> interpreted by the TC as suggesting that all the callback-related
> discussion need to be re-discussed in a separate TC and that we need to
> start from scratch. We believe that the SCA callback definition
> satisfies the needs of SCA. Furthermore the SCA callback definition is
> general enough to satisfy other needs as well. Doing so is well within
> the scope of this TC and we believe it is interoperable on the wire.
>
> This is very similar to what the WS-RX TC [.1] did when it created a
> polling specification [.2]. Polling is necessary to implement reliable
> messaging when one of the interacting entities is behind a firewall.
> They created a specification that is useful for WS-ReliableMessaging as
> well as other WS-* implementation that have a need for polling and
> choose to use WS-MakeConnection for that purpose.
>
> [.1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ws-rx
> [.2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/200702/wsmc-1.1-spec-os.html
>
>  > The TC's response goes on to say that "This TC does believe that it
>  > should define an interoperable Web services protocol that implements SCA
>  > callback and it has done that. It does not believe that it is in the
>  > scope or interest of this TC to define a callback protocol for all
>  > architectures and programming models."
>
> What was meant here (and should have been said) was:
> *<mje>*
> *Again: "To clarify our previous response:"*
> *</mje>*
> We believe that we have defined an interoperable callback protocol. It
> works for SCA and we believe it works for other architectures and
> programming models (SCA is designed ground-up for a multiple programming
> model environments).
>
> If Microsoft believes that the SCA callback definition does not fit
> their architecture/programming model, then we respectfully request (and
> per our understanding certain members of the TC have in the past)
> Microsoft to participate in the TC. No one, including Microsoft, has
> brought forward any *specific* architectural or interoperability issues
> with the callback protocol definition.
>
>  > We respectfully find this
>  > statement contradictory, unless the TC defines the term
>  > "interoperability" in its narrowest form: SCA implementations will only
>  > be interoperable amongst themselves, and not with other frameworks and
>  > runtimes. We would find this unfortunate, as OASIS is committed to broad
>  > interoperability, especially when it comes to use of Web Service wire
>  > protocols. It would be better to standardize a Web Services callback in
>  > a separate spec, with the participation of all vendors who build
>  > platforms and products that support Web Services wire protocols.
>  >
>
> Again, we would welcome Microsoft's participating in this TC.
>
> **********
> [note this paragraph depends on the resolution of issue 124]
>
> We would also note that the spec now contains conformance requirements
> for non-SCA runtimes that would like to implement the protocol and
> interoperable on the wire.
> **********
>
>  > It is clear from [1] that the TC is aware that interoperability with
>  > non-SCA runtimes is an issue. The TC discussed the idea of moving the
>  > callback portion of the protocol into its own document in order to
>  > address "the use case of non-SCA clients does walk into the more general
>  > territory alluded to by MS." We highly recommend that the Binding and
>  > Assembly TCs work together to design a Web Services Binding spec that is
>  > interoperable with non-SCA technologies. Without interoperability,
>  > software developers and users will find it difficult to use SCA in the
>  > heterogeneous, multi-vendor environments that all our customers live in.
>  >
>
> **********
> [note this paragraph depends on the resolution of issue 124]
>
> Indeed, and the spec has been changed to allow non-SCA runtimes to
> conform to the protocol and interoperate on the wire.
> *<mje>*
> *The specification has been extended to provide specific conformance
> statements*
> *that provide a definition of what any runtime, including non-SCA
> runtimes, would need*
> *to do to conform to the protocol and to interoperate on the wire*
> *</mje>*
> **********
>
>  > [1]
>  >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34064/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202009-09-03.doc
>  >
>  > Regards,
>  >
>  > Michael Champion
>  >
>  > *From:* Simon Holdsworth [mailto:simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com]
>  > *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:04 AM
>  > *To:* sca-bindings-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>  > *Subject:* [sca-bindings-comment] Response to: "Microsoft technical
>  > comment: Develop interoperable approach notspecific to SCA for callbacks"
>  >
>  >
>  > This is a formal response of the OASIS SCA Bindings technical committee
>  > to the "Microsoft technical comment: Develop interoperable approach not
>  > specific to SCA for callbacks" which was sent to the SCA Bindings public
>  > comments list.
>  >
>  > This is the agreed response of the technical committee as a whole and
>  > was approved unanimously at the meeting of the TC which took place on
>  > September 3rd 2009.
>  >
>  > ------------------------
>  >
>  > Thanks for taking the time to review the specification, sending your
>  > public review comment [1], and for sharing you thoughts. They are much
>  > appreciated.
>  >
>  > The public review comment at [1] suggests that: "... the work of
>  > defining a Web Service callback standard is best done by the appropriate
>  > Web Services working groups in OASIS in the broadest scope possible.
>  > This will foster a general interoperable mechanism for all architectures
>  > and programming models that use standard Web Services protocols on the
>  > wire."
>  >
>  > There is a misunderstanding on the commenter's part that the SCA Web
>  > Services Binding defines a (generally applicable) "Web Service callback
>  > standard." The binding defines an *SCA* Web service callback protocol
>  > standard that provides the wire-level details for implementing an SCA
>  > callback defined by the SCA Assembly specification [2]. [2] defines a
>  > callback mechanism that satisfies the needs of the SCA Assembly model
>  > and is not meant to satisfy general purpose callback requirements with a
>  > broadest scope possible. Furthermore, there does not exist any other
>  > OASIS Web Services Working Group or a Technical Committee that
>  > specializes in Web Services that has callbacks in its charter scope.
>  > This TC *does* specialize in Web services and is chartered to produce a
>  > Web services binding for SCA.
>  >
>  > This TC does believe that it should define an interoperable Web services
>  > protocol that implements SCA callback and it has done that. It does not
>  > believe that it is in the scope or interest of this TC to define a
>  > callback protocol for all architectures and programming models.
>  >
>  > WRT your comment about SCA Assembly specification Section 7.4, we
>  > respectfully request you to share that feedback with the SCA Assembly TC
>  > [3], as the SCA Assembly specification is not owned by and is not in
>  > scope for this TC.
>  >
>  > [1]
>  >
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings-comment/200908/msg00000.html
>  >
>  > [2]
>  >
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03.pdf
>  >
>  > [3]
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=sca-assembly
>  >
>  > --------------------------
>  >
>  > Follow-up comments are welcome.
>  >
>  > Regards, Simon
>  >
>  > Simon Holdsworth
>  > STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC
> Chair
>  > 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
> <mailto:Simon_Holdsworth@uk.ibm.com>
>  >
>  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  > /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/
>
>
>
>
>
>