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] Suggested wording for POLICY-83


 >"and where any unqualified qualifiable intents are replaced with the 
default qualified form of that intent, according to the
 > default qualifier in the definition of the intent."

Thanks!  I had forgotten about that too!  So, now we have two reasons to 
require a default qualifier if there are any qualifiers.  I'm good with 
that.

Re. the SOAP intents I thought that there was a suggestion that we do 
not declare a default qualifier. 
But perhaps I misunderstood!

All the best, Ashok


David Booz wrote:
>
> Hi Ashok,
>
> Something about this issue was bugging me last night, so I did some 
> investigation in the spec this AM. Looking at CD02/PRD, line 1451 (in 
> the section which normalizes attached intents into a required intent 
> set), I found this statement:
> "and where any unqualified qualifiable intents are replaced with the 
> default qualified form of that intent, according to the default 
> qualifier in the definition of the intent."
>
> While it doesn't read quite right, the intention is clearly to replace 
> unqualified intents with their default qualified form and also assumes 
> that there is a default qualifier if there are any qualifiers. This 
> usage of default qualifiers was a surprise to me (i.e., I forgot about 
> it) as I thought that the default qualifier was only used in 
> processing intentMaps in policySets.
>
> I think the words you propose to resolve POLICY-83 are good.
>
> I also want to react to the last statement below:
>
> >> In other discussions re the SOAP intents we have taken the position 
> that a default qualifier may not be specified. This is contrary to 
> POL30004 and would require a significant change to the spec.
>
> The current SOAP intent definition has "1_1" set as the default 
> qualifier. Can you help me understand what discussion you're referring 
> to because I might have missed something? The web service binding 
> discussions I'm aware of have not suggested changing this default. We 
> have been discussing the need to declare the qualifiers to be mutually 
> exclusive.
>
> 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 ---05/12/2009 08:24:55 
> AM---Eric pointed out that the existing wording for conformanceashok 
> malhotra ---05/12/2009 08:24:55 AM---Eric pointed out that the 
> existing wording for conformance statement [POL30004] states:
>
>
> From: 	
> ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
>
> To: 	
> OASIS Policy <sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> Date: 	
> 05/12/2009 08:24 AM
>
> Subject: 	
> [sca-policy] Suggested wording for POLICY-83
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Eric pointed out that the existing wording for conformance statement
> [POL30004] states:
> "If an intent has more than one qualifier, one and only one MUST be
> declared as the default qualifier."
> and does not cover the case where a single qualifier is declared for the
> intent.  See http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-83
>
> Suggested rewording:
> If an intent has one or more qualifiers, one and only one MUST be
> declared as the default qualifier.
>
> Note that this is an extra-Schema constraint.  The Schema provides an
> optional 'default' attribute for the
> qualifier definition in the intent so, according to the Schema, this
> attribute can be omitted for all qualifiers or
> set to 'false'.  POL30004 says that this attribute MUST be set to true
> for one and only one of the qualifiers.
>
> In other discussions re the SOAP intents we have taken the position that
> a default qualifier may not be specified.
> This is contrary to POL30004 and would require a significant change to
> the spec.
>
> -- 
> 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 
>
>
>


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