[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]