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-bindings] Re: [sca-policy] Suggested wording for POLICY-83


Mike,
See responses inline.

   Simon

Mike Edwards wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Is there really a contradiction here?
> 
> Simon is correct in saying that SOAP unqualified does not specify any 
> particular version of SOAP
> whereas SOAP.1_1 and SOAP.1_2 imply those particular versions.
> 
> However, I don't see there being a problem in declaring a default of 
> "SOAP.1_1" - it does not contradict
> the above.
> 
> What the default means is that "in the absence of any further 
> information, SOAP unqualified is taken to
> mean SOAP.1_1".  There are cases where further information applies...
> 
> This give the following kinds of scenario:
> 
> 1. Binding that supports only SOAP.1_2.
> Can happily claim to satisfy intents SOAP and SOAP.1_2
> Can't satisfy SOAP.1_1
> 
Agreed.  This shows that an intent of SOAP is not equivalent to an
intent of SOAP.1_1, as this binding can satisfy the former but not
the latter.

> 2. Binding that supports only SOAP.1_3 (a hypothetical future version)
> Can happily satisfy intent SOAP
> Can't satisfy SOAP.1_1 or SOAP.1_2
> 
Agreed.  This shows that an intent of SOAP is not equivalent to an
intent of SOAP.1_1, as this binding can satisfy the former but not
the latter.

> 3. Binding that supports both SOAP.1_1 and SOAP.1_2
> Can happily satisfy intents SOAP, SOAP.1_1 and SOAP.1_2
> 
> - however, typically, if only SOAP is specified, then what the binding 
> will actually provide
> is SOAP.1_1 - since it's the default.  If the user REALLY wanted 
> SOAP.1_2 then they should
> use the SOAP.1_2 intent
> 
I have two comments on this.  Firstly, a default runtime choice
of using SOAP 1.1 is not the same as the unqualified SOAP intent
defaulting to SOAP.1_1 (which mandates SOAP 1.1 ONLY, not SOAP 1.1
as a default preference).

Secondly, I think this shows there is a possible ambiguity in
section 4.2.2.  I had taken this bulleted list as being "anded"
together, so that if none of the transport details in the bulleted
list are otherwise determined (e.g., when <binding.ws> with no
wsdlElement is used), then all of the choices in the bulleted list
MUST be used.

Your statement that SOAP 1.1 is the default seems to interpret
the bulleted list as an "or" rather than an "and", so that for each
individual bulleted item, if the transport details relating to that
specific item are not otherwise determined, then the choice in the
bulleted list for that specific item MUST be used.

I think the latter interpretation would imply that the items in the
bulleted list are used as "tie-breakers" for a reference binding with
a wsdlElement specifying a WSDL Service containing multiple ports.
For example, if the reference specifies an intent of SOAP and the
WSDL Service has two ports that are identical except that one uses
SOAP 1.1 and the other uses SOAP 1.2, the "tie-breaker" interpretation
of section 4.2.2 would imply that the SOAP 1.1 port MUST be used.

I did not think this was the intention of section 4.2.2.  If this
is the intention, then the wording of this section should be changed
to state this more clearly.

   Simon

> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> From: 	Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>
> To: 	sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: 	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: 	12/05/2009 20:05
> Subject: 	Re: [sca-policy] Suggested wording for POLICY-83
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> Dave,
> See inline below.
> 
>   Simon
> 
> 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.
>  >
> The WS Binding spec contains normative text that is incompatible with
> SOAP.1_1 being the default qualifier if the unqualified SOAP intent
> is used.  The following is from section 4.1:
> 
>  So as to narrow the range of choices for how messages are carried,
>  the following policy intents affect the transport binding:
>   • SOAP
>     When the SOAP intent is required, the SCA runtime MUST transmit
>     and receive messages using SOAP. One or more SOAP versions can
>     be used [BWS40001].
>   • SOAP.1_1
>     When the SOAP.1_1 intent is required, the SCA runtime MUST transmit
>     and receive messages using only SOAP 1.1 [BWS40002].
>   • SOAP.1_2
>     When the SOAP.1_2 intent is required, the SCA runtime MUST transmit
>     and receive messages using only SOAP 1.2 [BWS40003].
> 
> Using 1_1 as the default qualifier for the SOAP intent would contradict
> the above.  This needs to be resolved between the Policy TC and the
> Bindings TC.
> 
>   Simon
> 
>  > 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
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]