[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]