[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-policy] ISSUE-97: Suggestion to address suspected default/unqualifiedintent ambiguity
Rich,
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-97 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 ![]()
Note: this can either be a new issue or it can be considered part of either or both of issues 90 and 95. Discussion so far of issues 90 and 95 has pretty much convinced me that something is insufficiently specified about unqualified vs qualified intents in conjunction with specifications for defaults. TARGET: SCA Policy FW cd02 rev1 (doc) http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=31980&wg_abbrev=sca-policy SUMMARY: Specifically, it appears to be unclear whether specifying an unqualified version of an intent that has qualifiers defined for it means that one should use the unqualified intent to mean that ANY of the qualifiers is acceptable, or whether it means that the default qualifier should be applied to the unqualified version. DETAILS: The definition of default says (305-308):
What I consider to be the "major" ambiguity is what is described in the SUMMARY above, namely that if we go by the definition of "default" and have more than one qualifier defined, then one of those qualifiers must be defined as the default value. Therefore, one MUST assume (I would think) that if an unqualified intent was specified then when this intent was processed, that one MUST apply the default qualifier to it. Why? Because, otherwise the definition of "default" is rendered meaningless, because the default only is used when the intent is unqualified, and if we apply the default then the intent is now qualified. However, on the other hand, if we were say that the intent should remain unqualified, then this means there is no point to defining a default, since there are no circumstances when it would be used! Based on the discussion of issue 95, and based on my original understanding of what was intended, and based on the proposed resolution to issue 95, which I believe is to allow the following lines about SOAP to remain accurate (2306-2310, esp. last sentence):
PROPOSAL: In words, the proposal is:
2. Change the meaning of "default" as follows:
2. Do NOT require any qualifier to be the default. i.e. REMOVE the sentence that says "...one MUST be declared as the default qualifier" 3. But do say: "If one qualifier IS DEFINED with default="true", then if the intent is specified as unqualified, then the default value applies." 4. However, also say: "If one or more qualifiers is defined for the intent, and NONE of the qualifiers has a default="true" attribute THEN if the intent is specified as unqualified, then ANY one of the qualifiers may be used to satisfy the intent. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]