Re: [sca-policy] Action 20080112-02: (Ashok) Raise an issue regardingthe places where interaction intents can be attached

[ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>]

Let's discuss on Monday's call
All the best, Ashok


David Booz wrote:
>
> Let me start by apologizing. I need to back track; 
> propagatesTransaction and suspendsTransaction are interaction intents, 
> as per lines 2262-2263 (rev13). So everything I said before is null 
> and void. This raises a question in my mind. I'm thinking that we 
> should change the spec to make these things implementation intents. It 
> would solve the clunky wire matching problem we have with them. I'll 
> open an issue for this.
>
> Now, to your question. I think it would be more appropriate to say 
> that interaction intents don't *_apply_* to implementations. A 
> composite can be an implementation, and we do support the ability to 
> attach intents at the composite level of the XML hierarchy such that 
> they are logically attached to all the applicable child elements, 
> which would be bindings in this case. Remember that we make careful 
> use of the words attach and apply, they are not synonyms.
>
> So to answer your specific question; no, I don't think we should say 
> that interaction intents cannot be attached to implementations.
>
> However, if the question you meant to ask was 'Do we need to say that 
> interaction intents cannot apply to implementations?', then I agree 
> with you. Currently the spec says 'typically interaction intents apply 
> to bindings', which is a fairly weak statement. Can anyone think of 
> use cases where an interaction intent would apply to an 
> implementation? If not, then we should open an issue for this.
>
>
> As for your question 2 from your original email. I think you should 
> open an issue to tighten up the schema.
>
> And we still need an issue to create/update and consolidate all the 
> intent def'ns into one chapter in the document. Are you going to open 
> this one also?
>
> Dave Booz
> STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
> Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
> "Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
> Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
> e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
>
> Inactive hide details for ashok malhotra ---01/15/2009 11:29:15 
> AM---Do we need to say that interaction intents cannot be attacashok 
> malhotra ---01/15/2009 11:29:15 AM---Do we need to say that 
> interaction intents cannot be attached to implementations?
>
>
> From: 	
> ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
>
> To: 	
> David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS
>
> Cc: 	
> sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> Date: 	
> 01/15/2009 11:29 AM
>
> Subject: 	
> Re: [sca-policy] Action 20080112-02: (Ashok) Raise an issue regarding 
> the places where interaction intents can be attached
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Do we need to say that interaction intents cannot be attached to
> implementations?
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
> David Booz wrote:
> >
> > From rev13, lines 347-350
> >
> > Implementation elements often apply to <implementation/> elements, but
> > they can also apply to <binding/> elements, where the desire is to
> > influence the activity of the binding implementation code and how it
> > interacts with the remainder of the runtime code for the implementation.
> >
> >
> > BTW, there is a typo at the start of line 347....it should read
> > Implementation intents often apply......
> >
> > And yes this was done so that the transaction intents
> > propagatesTransaction and suspendsTransaction could apply to a service
> > or reference binding. Note the preceding paragraph (lines 341-345)
> > which says that implementation intents on services and references
> > don't affect wire matching. This is the reason we added the @intentType.
> >
> >
> > What we need is for each of the intent Definitions that we have in the
> > spec to be updated with the intentType attribute. There are some in
> > CH8 and some in CH9. This is what I thought you were going to open the
> > issue for. It would be good at the same time to add intent def'ns for
> > the intents which don't have def'ns and then put all the def'ns into
> > their own chapter.
> >
> > Dave Booz
> > STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
> > Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
> > "Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
> > Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
> > e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
> >
> > Inactive hide details for ashok malhotra ---01/14/2009 02:57:39
> > PM---Is there an example of that in the Transaction section? Iashok
> > malhotra ---01/14/2009 02:57:39 PM---Is there an example of that in
> > the Transaction section? I cannot remember why we say that.
> >
> >
> > From:
> > ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> >
> > To:
> > David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS
> >
> > Cc:
> > sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
> >
> > Date:
> > 01/14/2009 02:57 PM
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: [sca-policy] Action 20080112-02: (Ashok) Raise an issue regarding
> > the places where interaction intents can be attached
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there an example of that in the Transaction section?  I cannot
> > remember why we say that.
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
> >
> > David Booz wrote:
> > >
> > > On your point 1, the spec already says that impl intents can be
> > > attached to bindings. Do you want to change that?
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Booz
> > > STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
> > > Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
> > > "Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
> > > Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
> > > e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
> > >
> > > Inactive hide details for ashok malhotra ---01/14/2009 02:24:24
> > > PM---When we resolved issue 44 we added a attribute to the inteashok
> > > malhotra ---01/14/2009 02:24:24 PM---When we resolved issue 44 we
> > > added a attribute to the intent definition XSD called intentType which
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> > >
> > > To:
> > > OASIS Policy <sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > >
> > > Date:
> > > 01/14/2009 02:24 PM
> > >
> > > Subject:
> > > [sca-policy] Action 20080112-02: (Ashok) Raise an issue regarding the
> > > places where interaction intents can be attached
> > >
> > > 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When we resolved issue 44 we added a attribute to the intent 
> definition
> > > XSD called intentType which can have its value 'interaction' or
> > > 'implementation'.   I would like to raise 2 issues wrt to this.
> > >
> > > 1. We need to say that implementation intents MUST be attached only to
> > > implementations and interaction intents MUST be attached to 
> references,
> > > services, bindings, etc.
> > > A possible complication is that either type of intent may be 
> associated
> > > with 'component' and inherited downwards.
> > >
> > > 2. The schema could be tightened up to say that only the two values
> > > 'interaction' or 'implementation' are allowed for this attribute.
> > > --
> > > All the best, Ashok
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>