[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 21 - Clarify Request Scope lifetime
Thanks Michael. This just popped into my inbox (after I sent my previous
email). I'm glad I initiated one more mail download before going to sleep.
Dave Booz
STSM, SCA and WebSphere Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
http://washome.austin.ibm.com/xwiki/bin/view/SCA2Team/WebHome
"Michael Rowley"
<mrowley@bea.com>
To
03/13/2008 02:31 "Mike Edwards"
PM <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>,
<sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 21 - Clarify
Request Scope lifetime
Mike,
You are absolutely right. The resolution was only w.r.t. java components.
Given that, I will agree with Dave B that in this case the
conversation-propagation idea is a little bit different from request scope
semantics. Nonetheless, I think it would be close enough to warrant
getting rid of the request scope.
Michael
From: Mike Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:44 AM
To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 21 - Clarify Request Scope lifetime
Folks,
Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick here, I think that the SCA
Java TC is acting ultra vires.
Dave posed a question about a composite exposing two services, one
conversational one non
conversational.
Michael responded saying that the Java F2F decided that a component
cannot offer both a
conversational and non-conversational service.
Now, I can agree that the SCA Java TC decided that a Java
implementation could not offer both a
conversational and a non-conversational service. However, to extend
this idea to apply to all
components, using whatever implementation type, I think must be a
decision of the SCA Assembly
TC.
If the Java TC really wants to limit ALL components to only expose
either conversational or non conversational
services, but never both, then I think the TC must get an appropriate
issue raised in the Assembly TC. I suspect
that the other C&I TCs would need to be consulted also.
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
"Michael Rowley"
<mrowley@bea.com>
To
13/03/2008 14:30 "David Booz"
<booz@us.ibm.com>,
<sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 21 -
Clarify Request Scope
lifetime
At the F2F we resolved that a component is not allowed to offer both
a
conversational and non-conversational service.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: David Booz [mailto:booz@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:35 PM
To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 21 - Clarify Request Scope lifetime
What if the composite exposes two services, one conversational and
one
non-conversational? Would the conversational service act as in 3 and
the
non-conversational service as in 4? That's not clear from your text.
While it seems desireable to be able to answer yes to the second
question,
I'll observe that it means that components in that composite will run
differently (different context) depending on the inbound service.
This
is
another divergence from request scope.
...and while I have your attention...regrets for the call tomorrow.
Dave Booz
STSM, SCA and WebSphere Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
http://washome.austin.ibm.com/xwiki/bin/view/SCA2Team/WebHome
"Michael Rowley"
<mrowley@bea.com>
To
03/12/2008 10:14 "Barack, Ron"
<ron.barack@sap.com>,
PM "OASIS Java"
<sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 21 - Clarify
Request Scope lifetime
During the F2F it was observed that the request scope is similar to
the
conversation scope, except that it automatically propagates around
the
local components of a composite. Perhaps it would be simpler to take
advantage of this similarity and also expand on conversation scopes.
If
an
entire conversation can be marked as conversational, it could mean
that
all
of the components within the composite work within the same
conversation.
This is also something that BEA has had customers ask for on its own
right.
However, if we did this, the request-scope could be removed, since
basically same semantics could be achieved by having a composite that
has
been marked as "local" be also marked as conversational.
The rules that we discussed at the F2F were:
1. Composite can be marked to propagate conversations through all
components within the composite ("propagatesConversation").
2. Request scope goes away.
3. If the composite service has a conversational interface, then if
the
composite is marked as "propagatesConversation" then the conversation
of
the composite's client will be propagated throughout all of the
components
within the composite.
4. If the composite service has a non-conversational interface, then
if
the
composite is marked as "propagatesConversation", then (unless step 3
applies) a new conversation will be started on each operation of the
composite service and propagated throughout the components within the
composite.
5. Marking a composite as "propagatesConversation" acts as if all the
components have been marked as "propagatesConversation". Marking a
component with "propagatesConversation" means that any conversationID
passed into the component through a service will be passed with any
call
on
a intra-composite wire from the component.
If this were to happen, it would probably have to be done in either
the
policy or assembly TC.
Michael
From: Barack, Ron [mailto:ron.barack@sap.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:26 AM
To: OASIS Java
Subject: [sca-j] ISSUE 21 - Clarify Request Scope lifetime
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-21
Von:: Michael Rowley [mailto:mrowley@bea.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 21. Januar 2008 21:24
An: OASIS Java.
Betreff: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE: Clarify Request Scope lifetime
RAISER: Michael Rowley
TARGET: SCA Java Component Implementation Specification section
titled "Request Scope"
DESCRIPTION:
The section currently starts with the following sentence:
"The lifecycle of request scope extends from the point a request
on a
remotable interface enters the SCA runtime and a thread
processes
that request until the thread completes synchronously processing
the
request."
From this description, it is not clear whether the request scope
lasts through a remotable call to another component that happens
to
be local. In one possible interpretation it would depend on the
binding. A call through a web service binding would be seen as
changing threads, and therefore would be a new request scope.
The
same call through an SCA binding might be assumed to remain
within
the thread and therefore be within the same scope.
It is probably a bad idea for the scope to depend on the binding
that
is used, and it may even be a bad idea for the scope to depend
on
whether a call through a remotable interface _happens_ to be
local.
PROPOSALS:
1) Have the request scope be only for a single remotable
operation
call. From that operation, any request scope component that is
reached through only local-service calls would reach the same
component instance. Calls through a remotable interface would
introduce a new request scope.
2) Alternately, the request scope could last from the time a
request
"enters the SCA runtime" until it is done, but with the
clarification
that the "SCA Runtime" is domain-wide. As long as a call is
made
to
another SCA component within the same domain (irrespective of
the
binding used) it is part of the same request scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
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]