OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bindings message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 126: proposal to add support for ws-addr(v1)


Eric,

As far as 'feature creep' goes, I agree. But the big feature here is 
ws-policy. Compared to that, ws-addressing support is trivial, more 
importantly most (all?) recent stacks already support it, and you can't 
do any interesting interactions other than sync req-res over HTTP 
req-res. FWIW, in retrospect, I think ws-addressing should have been 
baked into SOAP.

-Anish
--

On 5/5/2010 5:56 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
> I've not looked at the specific proposal yet, but my skepticism persists.
>
> Just because we're unable to to test a proposal to mandate something,
> we've gone down the path of:
>
>     * Mandating support for WS-Addressing
>     * Mandating support for EPR where we used to just suggest it.
>     * Mandating support for the WS-Policy indication that flags the use
>       of WS-Addressing
>     * Mandating support of the protocol assertion for the protocol when
>       support is there
>
> ... all around an issue where we all seem to agree that the use cases
> are unclear.  My design instincts are screaming "feature creep!"  All of
> this nets out to an implementation needing to recognize the
> WS-Addressing assertion in a concrete referenced WSDL, and then using
> the support that we've now mandated.  It doesn't actually reveal much
> about actual support for the underlying concern - WS-Policy.  The above
> set of mandates does reveal the ability to recognize XML elements in a
> particular scenario and not barf them up, but that's about it.
>
> WS-Policy is a particular XML-based expression of a model for policies -
> a "platform dependent model" (PDM) in UML terms.  SCA intents come close
> to being a "platform independent model" for policy requirements as I've
> seen.
>
> Without a mandate to use WS-Policy, implementers can happily punt on
> correlating between the two, and hopefully avoid complexity for
> themselves and their customers by always generating one (the PDM) from
> the other (PIM).  In fact, the way to generate the PDM from the PIM is
> to define the mechanism that does the one-way translation.  In mandating
> WS-Policy, we might make it necessary for implementations to think about
> having a bi-directional model between the two, where (a) it might not
> make sense, and (b) it may actually be more confusing to the end-user
> than simply giving an implementation the freedom to say "I don't
> understand how to do what you're asking me."
>
> Does anyone actually have implementation experience that suggests that
> this particular mandate works?  If so, I will happily hear the details
> and how they work, and be quiet.  Otherwise, I think we're going to far
> with 126.
>
> -Eric
>
> On 05/05/2010 01:09 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>> Attached.
>>
>> The proposal uses cd03-rev4 as the basis (with changes accepted). The
>> relevant changes are confined to section 2.10 (new section) and
>> section 6.4. Do note that Mike & I had taken a joint AI to produce a
>> complete proposal for issue 126. The attached doc adds support for
>> ws-addr but not for ws-policy.
>>
>> I have made one change that was not discussed on previous calls or on
>> the ML: when the callback protocol is supported I had made changes
>> that require the runtime to support the callback protocol policy
>> assertion. Since this proposal is about requiring ws-policy, I thought
>> it made a lot of sense to mandate support for the protocol assertion
>> when the protocol is supported.
>>
>> If this (or something like this) is accepted, I think we should make
>> the endpointReference element mandatory (currently it is a SHOULD).
>> Especially, since the UPA issue resolution means that it would be the
>> same element defined in ws-address. But on the last call, someone
>> expressed preference to deal with this separately. I'll raise an issue
>> related to that if/when 126 is resolved.
>>
>> Mike: I know this proposal doesn't give you a lot of time to add
>> ws-policy support before the bindings call. Please let me know if you
>> don't have time and I can try and add that later this evening/tonight
>> (my time).
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -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


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]