Indeed.
-Eric.
On 06/04/2010 03:59 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
OFF7687AC7.2104A035-ON80257738.003BDAB3-80257738.003C6367@uk.ibm.com"
type="cite">
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
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
|