sca-bindings message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: [NEW ISSUE]: Clarify optionality of SHOULD statement BJM60009
- From: Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com>
- To: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:14:12 +0100
Target: sca-jmsbinding-1.1-csd05.pdf
Description:
The JMS binding specification includes
statement BJM60009 with a SHOULD keyword:
For an SCA service with a JMS binding, when
a response message is sent as part of a request/response MEP where the
request message included a null JMSReplyTo destination and
the JMS binding does not include a response/destination then
an error SHOULD be raised by the SCA runtime [BJM60009]
We need to clarify whether this is an
optional part of the JMS binding spec.
Proposal:
For this statement, the reason that
an error SHOULD be raised is that the reply is undeliverable, as there
is no identified reply destination for the reply message to be placed on.
An SCA runtime implementation might provide some alternative means for
identifying the reply destination, perhaps dynamically at runtime, or use
some fixed destination for such undeliverable replies but I would question
the value of doing that in this situation. I don't see why an SCA
runtime would silently ignore this error and throw away the response, so
this ought to be strengthened. The remaining question to my mind
is whether this error ought to be handled at the point the request is received
rather than the point at which the response is sent. Should the SCA
runtime actually prevent the request from being dispatched if it knows
at that point that the reply will not be delivered? One option would
be to strengthen this statement as follows:
For an SCA service with a JMS binding, when
a request message is received as part of a request/response MEP where the
request message includes a null JMSReplyTo destination and
the JMS binding does not include a response/destination then
the SCA runtime MUST stop processing the request and raise an error [BJM60009]
This would result in a possibly testable
assertion - perhaps being able to test that the target component is not
called in this case, whereas the alternative approach of simply changing
the SHOULD to MUST in the original statement would still be untestable.
---------------------------------
Simon Holdsworth
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]