OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-policy message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [sca-policy] Wording for Issue 24


You are correct, I forgot about the intentMap decision.   Neither an error
nor requiring a default are appealing.  I lean toward replacing step H with
an error mostly because the intent set really should be empty by then.  I
use 'error' loosely here, noting the paragraph at lines 1337-1340;

When the configuration is not valid, it means that the required intents are
not being correctly satisfied. However, an SCA Domain may allow a deployer
to force deployment even in the presence of such errors. The behaviors and
options enforced by a deployer is not specified.

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 
             02/12/2008 02:02          David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS,  
             PM                        <sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org>   
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: [sca-policy] Wording for Issue  
                                       24                                  
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





At the F2F I believe we voted that the new default mechanism would
replace, rather than augment, the existing intentMap/default mechanism.
Given this, we can't keep step H.  We need to either make the default
required, or generate an error if a qualifiable intent that doesn't have
a default is still around as late as step H.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: David Booz [mailto:booz@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:23 AM
To: sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sca-policy] Wording for Issue 24

In Ashok's proposal for Issue 24, @default is optional, which means that
step A7 might leave unqualified intents in the intent set.  As a result,
I
don't think we can remove H.

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
             02/11/2008 05:45          "OASIS Policy"

             PM                        <sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org>


cc



Subject
                                       RE: [sca-policy] Wording for
Issue
                                       24


















The algorithm section (section 4.10) should be changed as follows:

Now:

      A. Calculate the required intent set that applies to the target
      element as follows:
      ...
      6.    If the set of intents includes both a qualified version of
an
      intent and an unqualified version of the same intent, remove the
      unqualified version from the set.

Add A7 as follows:

            7.                Replace any remaining qualifiable intents
            with the default qualified form of that intent, according to
            the default qualifier in the definition of the intent.

Delete Step H:

      H. If a required intent is unqualified and matches a policySet
that
      is also unqualified, then the intentMap entry for the qualifier
that
      is marked with default="true" should be used.

Michael Rowley


-----Original Message-----
From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:24 AM
To: Natale, Bob
Cc: OASIS Policy
Subject: Re: [sca-policy] Wording for Issue 24

Good suggestion. Thanks!
Ashok

Natale, Bob wrote:

> Hi Ashok,
>
> Concerning the wording of this paragraph from the top of p.2:
>
> "An intent that can be completely satisfied by one of a choice of
> lower-level intents is referred to as a qualifiable intent. In order
> to express such intents, the intent name may contain a qualifier, ".".
> An intent that includes _the name of a qualifiable intent_ in its name
> is referred to as a qualified intent, because it is "qualifying" how
> the qualifiable intent is satisfied. A qualified intent can only
> qualify one qualifiable intent, so the name of the qualified intent
> includes the name of the qualifiable intent as a prefix (separated by
> "."), for example, authentication.message. See Usage of @requires
> attribute for specifying intents."
>
> ...It seems that the 3rd sentence might be better stated as:
>
> "An intent that includes _a qualifier_ in its name is referred to as a
> qualified intent, because it is "qualifying" how the qualifiable
> intent is satisfied."
>
> (Underline added just for clarity here -- not intended for the actual
> text.)
> Cheers,
> BobN
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:42 AM
> To: OASIS Policy
> Subject: [sca-policy] Wording for Issue 24
>
> As requested, I have created wording changes in sections 3.1 and 3.2
> of the
> Policy Framework document to resolve issue 24.. Additional changes may
be
> needed in other sections to indicate how the intent defaults would be
> used. We
> need to discuss these changes.
> --
> All the best, Ashok



--
All the best, Ashok

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]