Eric, please go ahead and make the changes. I agree on MD, but that
leaves us with the sticky problem as to how to explain the reference
mechanism without using anything as an example....
Greg
Newcomer, Eric wrote:
I finally finished typing in the comments to Greg's draft. I have not yet reviewed Mark's comments but I will do that next.
Maybe I should take a stab at incorporating some of the comments, especially the structural one. I am proposing the organize the spec more around the activity concept:
1) Define activity as an execution environment for which context needs to be created and managed
2) Define the context data structure to be used
3) Define the context management service that (optionally?) supplements the context management capabilities of the Web services in the activity
Also I do not think we can yet incorporate WS-MD, especially since IBM, BEA, and Microsoft have all publicly stated their intention to submit WS-Addressing to W3C in September.
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:37 AM
To: Greg Pavlik
Cc: ws-caf-editors
Subject: Re: [ws-caf-editors] Re: Latest revisions
Comments inline.
Mark.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Pavlik" <greg.pavlik@oracle.com>
To: "Greg Pavlik" <greg.pavlik@oracle.com>
Cc: "ws-caf-editors" <ws-caf-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:00 PM
Subject: [ws-caf-editors] Re: Latest revisions
Attached.
Greg Pavlik wrote:
Gentlemen,
I have gone through to resolve my open issues and also to attempt to
tidy up the spec by flagging redundancy and content we agreed to
remove at the F2F (for example, the rationalizations for nesting
belong in an FAQ or the Primer).
Please read this revision and check to make sure you agree with the
changes I have made. I have modified the context structure and added
text on both addressing/service references and on getting the value of
a context that is passed by reference. Make sure that you agree with
what is in there.
However, I have some action items for you all:
1) Eric, Mark: please make you agree with the defintion(s) of
activities. Make sure that all explanations of activities are
consistent with reference to the execution environment and contexts.
2) Eric, Mark: Please look for redundancy: it's annoying and it makes
the spec ultimately harder to read and maintain. I tried to eliminate
things that I thought were repetitive and unhelpful, let's talk before
we undo the deletes.
3) Simeon: I have made several changes to the schemas and XML
instances -- the changes aren't hard to find -- they need a) to be
backported to the real schema/wsdl that you maintain and b) validated.
Note that the SOAP example is currently incorrect, as the proper
namespaces are not imported. Also, let's revist whether we actually
need the "generic" service-ref element. I'm starting to think not.
4) Speaking of namespaces, we no longer have a section that says what
namespace prefixes refer to. Is this an oversight? Let's give this one
to Mark.
5) Mark, can you just remove the getContents method from ContextService?
6) What exactly is returned when a URL in a pass-by-reference context
is dereferenced? An XML document that contains the context structure
as understood by the issuing authority? We should spell this out; if I
recall, the ContextManager responds with a requested-context message.
7) Does anyone have an action to map the request-reply messages into a
(normative) table as per Peter's F2F request? This is actually
important as it allows us to avoid by normative rules requirements in
the callback pattern when using WS-MD.
By what date are we shooting for a new draft spec?
>
|