sca-bindings message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Conformance target of BWS40001, BWS40002, BWS40003
- From: Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>
- To: "OASIS Bindings" <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 08:29:53 -0400
We have to be careful about this, especially
for a reference.
As you point out, the SOAP intent is
attached to a <binding.ws/> element. But a service or a reference
can have multiple bindings. The wording "the SCA runtime MUST ensure
that the <reference/> or <service/> which is the parent of
the binding.ws element accepts messages which use the SOAP format and transmits
messages which use
the SOAP format" could be read to mean that the <reference/>
or <service/> must always use the SOAP format for transmitted messages
independent of the binding used. Something like this might be clearer:
...the SCA runtime MUST ensure that
the <reference/> or <service/> which is the parent of the <binding.ws/>
element accepts messages which use the SOAP format and transmits messages
which use the
SOAP format when the physical binding corresponding to the <binding.ws/>
element. is used. ...
Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
From:
| Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
|
To:
| "OASIS Bindings" <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Date:
| 06/02/2010 04:42 AM
|
Subject:
| [sca-bindings] Conformance target of
BWS40001, BWS40002, BWS40003 |
Folks,
This is a discussion that may lead to a new issue against the Web Service
Binding spec.
Normative statements BWS40001, BWS40002, BWS40003 all place a requirement
against the SCA runtime
I don't think that this is a good construction - and this is borne out
when building testcases for these statements.
Let's examine BWS40001 as a canonical example of all these statements:
"When the SOAP intent is required, the SCA runtime MUST transmit and
receive messages using SOAP. One or more SOAP versions can be used. [BWS40001]"
Hmm - first, let's deal with intent.
How is the SOAP intent required?
Well, the SOAP intent must be attached to the <binding.ws/> element
(or to one of the elements in it hierarchy) - ie. the SOAP intent is applied
to the binding.ws element.
The normative statement should be clearer about this.
Second let's deal with what transmits and receives messages: <binding.ws/>
is a subelement of either a <reference/> or of a <service/>.
It is the reference or service that must transmit/receive messages using
SOAP. This is the thing that is measurable - ie I can write a piece of
code (non SCA) that
can receive the messages from the reference or send messages to the service
and such a piece of code can ensure that it uses SOAP encoding.
As a result, in my opinion, BWS40001 would be better written in the following
way:
"When a <binding.ws/> element has the SOAP intent applied to
it, either through direct attachment or through attachment to another element
in the hierarchy of the element,
the SCA runtime MUST ensure that the <reference/> or <service/>
which is the parent of the binding.ws element accepts messages which use
the SOAP format and transmits messages which
use the SOAP format. One or more versions of SOAP can be used. [BWS40001]"
This is longer, but it is more specific and easier to relate to the way
in which the SCA runtime implementation must behave.
It is the behaviour of references and services which is testable in this
case - writing the normative statement in this way makes that clear.
I suggest that BWS40002, BWS40003 are rewritten in similar ways.
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
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]