[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-policy] [ISSUE 15] External attachment - Alternative Proposal
WRT point 1 only, the assembly spec CD01 already has policySets inside the
<defintions/> file.
Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA 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
Mike Edwards
<mike_edwards@uk.
ibm.com> To
"OASIS Policy"
07/22/2008 08:46 <sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org>
AM cc
Subject
Re: [sca-policy] [ISSUE 15]
External attachment - Alternative
Proposal
Ashok,
Replies inline marked as <mje>...</mje>
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
ashok malhotra
<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
To
Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB
21/07/2008 23:03 cc
OASIS Policy
<sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.o
Please respond to rg>
ashok.malhotra@oracle.com Subject
Re: [sca-policy] [ISSUE 15]
External attachment -
Alternative Proposal
Hi Mike:
In addition to the lifecycle issues that Rich has raised, I would like
to bring up a few high-level questions
re. you proposal for issue 15.
1. We can extend the policySet syntax to accommodate policy attachment
but we also need a file format.
This is for the file that contains the policySets and can be included in
a contribution.
<mje>
I note that the current spec doesn't have this today - and I agree that it
needs to be added.
We can either include PolicySets within <definitions/> (no new files
needed...) or we can create
a new PolicyDefinitions file. I have no strong feelings on this.
</mje>
2. I raised the usecase for corporate policies which, under the existing
specification could be merely included at some
high level and then pulled in as needed. Under the new proposal this
needs a bit more work. I would like to see
the details for this fleshed out.
<mje>
Not sure I see the problem here.
Take the corporate policies and contribute them to the Domain.
Provide some corporate level attachment definitions for those policy files,
like
//service/binding.ws
//reference/binding.ws
//service/binding.ws/IntentRefs("confidentiality")
</mje>
3. Policies on interfaces
a. interface.wsdl is identified by a URI that points to a definitions
file. If we want to attach policies to individual interface
elements such as a operation or a message, we should use the WSDL
fragment identifier syntax as used by binding.ws.
<mje>
I proposed using some functions for this.
- InterfaceRef
- OperationRef
- MessageRef
- sounds like you're not happy with this approach
How would the fragment identifier proposal work? Do you have some
examples?
In what ways is it better than my proposal?
</mje>
b. A common usecase may be "apply this policy to this binding and this
interface". This would require an XPath function
that identifies a wsdl interface which has as a sibling a particular
binding. This is not a simple XPath function to
write. We need an existence proof.
<mje>
Any peer based stuff is hard to write in XPath - but I find it hard to
believe that.
it is not possible to write one.
You're asking for a specific example, right?
</mje>
c. In the above usecase, what does the policy get attached to? The
binding or the interface element or some combination?
If it is attached to the interface it applies to all sibling bindings,
which may not be what we want.
<mje>
Logically it gets attached to the interface, operation or message as used
by the
specific binding identified (if any).
The rule must be that the binding gets picked first - and that if any
binding is OK, then
//service is used rather than //service/binding.ws (etc)
</mje>
You will recall that this is the reason Mike Rowley wanted to munge the
domain interface in unnatural ways. But we still
need to solve the problem.
<mje>
Agreed - and I think that the proposal does solve that
</mje>
All the best, Ashok
Mike Edwards wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Here is the alternative proposal for Issue 15 that we have been
> working on:
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to 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]