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: Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
- To: OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 11:59:34 +0100
Eric,
OK, let me try another formulation that
addresses your points:
"When the SOAP intent applies to a <binding.ws/> element the
SCA runtime MUST ensure that the runtime implementation of the component
reference or of the component service which contains
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]"
Better?
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:
| OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Date:
| 02/06/2010 18:10
|
Subject:
| Re: [sca-bindings] Conformance target
of BWS40001, BWS40002, BWS40003 |
I'm uncomfortable with the annointing XML elements with
capabilities.
In the proposed construction, "the SCA runtime MUST ensure that the
<reference/> or <service/> ... accepts messages ... and transmits
messages ...". I've never seen an XML tag that has this ability!
I realize that what you intend for me the poor reader to treat <reference/>
as a short-hand for "implementation corresponding to the <reference/>
element", but I find this too abbreviated, since the specification
can use "<reference/>" to refer to the XML representation.
Consequently, I'd prefer to refer to a slightly longer form: "<reference>
implementation". If you want to use this abbreviated form, I'd
also want that form explained in the introductory text, as in "In
the text below, "<elementname> implementation" means ...."
As to this: "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"
I agree we could add clarity to the original text, but the detail of the
statement, and the repetition of what the policy specification lays out
makes me wonder whether we intend for there to be some scenario where the
"intent", when applied in a normal fashion according to policy,
doesn't actually apply.
Why not just say something like: "When the SOAP intent applies to
the <binding.ws/> element...", or, if you feel the need to be
more explicit, "When, according to SCA Policy, the SOAP intent applies
to the <binding.ws/> element..."
-Eric.
On 06/02/2010 05:29 AM, Bryan Aupperle wrote:
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
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
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]