[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-caf-editors] als, context and compound protocols
Ah, I originally thought so as well, but just to further muddy the
waters (hopefully only for the moment) this won't work simply because
we must have the coordination context for all the known derived
protocols. And that is itself a derived type. Unless, of course, the coordination aspects are added as well on a per protocol basis. That makes it tough to encapsulated them vis a vis the CF layer though.: <ctx> <security> <coord/> </security> <transaction> <coord/> .... whatever this means </transaction> </ctx> How does this strike you?There is also the secondary issue of the SOAP processing model: the headers being in the same namespace will ultimately all go to the same handler set. I suppose this can in practice be a simple Chain of Responsibility pattern. Perhaps Eric has some further comments on this from a web services perspective? It's not sitting entirely well with me, at least I can't think of anything else that works quite the same way in the SOAP world (Anish Karmakar pointed this out to me originally). On the other hand, WS-T does the same thing (all protocols flow the base coordination context), so it may not be a big deal. The derivation/mutation problem is more soluble with a single ALS, I think. I have the sneaking suspicion that we could wipe out all these issues if we were able to sit in front of a whiteboard for a single afternoon. Greg Mark Little wrote: I think the original intention was simply to model the context type through XML "inheritence". However, it certainly wasn't fully thought out (like the substitution group stuff). I think that we should do away with it and go the a more uniform structure: <ctx> <security> </security> <transaction> .... whatever this means </transaction> </ctx> It's more in line with other useages of context out there, and the derivation mechanism doesn't buy us much (apart from the fact that maybe conceptually it's nicer to be able to differentiate a transaction context this way, but I'm not convinced). Mark. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Pavlik" <greg.pavlik@oracle.com> To: "ws-caf-editors" <ws-caf-editors@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:09 PM Subject: [ws-caf-editors] als, context and compound protocolsGuys, I have spent some time trying to figure out how we can have both derived context types and multiple ALSes. Let me see if I can explain the problem clearly without writing a dissertation. Let me first layout my understanding/assumptions as to what happens according to the spec: 1) There is a ContextService that only knows about contexts of the namespace [context namespace] 2) The context service creates a generic activity and represents it by a context of ContextType defined in [context namespace] when an Begin operation occurs 3) following the creating of the "generic context", the ContextService implemenation invokes ALSBegin with the generic Context included as a SOAP header. 4) the ALS, as it stands, produces a new "augmented" context, of a derived type. I put augmented in quotes because this is a mutation occurence. For example, if this is the ACID protocol, the ALS is interested in producing a context of the type defined in the [acid namespace]. Have I got this right? (As an aside, what is one to make of the sync context, the 2pc context and the acid context? Do we really need more than one context type here?) I've always found this to be a little strange and it's unclear to me how this works well for the creation of nested activities. But let's assume for the moment it's correct and we nail down the specifics of how generic contexts communicate to the ALS they are a part of derived type parent context later. Then... 5) The ALS responds to the ContextService with the new augmented context of the derived type. This is the context that the ContextService now maintains on behalf of the activity. 6) The ContextService returns the new augmented context of the derived type to the caller with the Begun operation on the UserContextService. This may work, however, I'm unclear as to what exactly happens when there are two ALSes. How does this "mutation" mechanism work? Which ALS does the mutating? Does the first ALS do the mutating? In my implementation, I cheated and restricted the registration of an ALS to one per protocol. Is there a way around this? Do we really care about accounting for the set of all possible scenarios we can dream up, or can we as a first version try to make something that works well with this restriction? We're keen to move things along rapidly, so let's strive to come to a convincing conclusion on this matter. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]