Re: [ws-caf-editors] Clarification on issue #136

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

I think it should be a ContextType, which leaves it open as to what the true
content will be (the ContextType "value" could be pass-by-reference, for
example).

Mark.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simeon Greene" <simeon.m.greene@oracle.com>
To: <ws-caf-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ws-caf-editors] Clarification on issue #136


> A follow up question:
> What type should we assign to parent-context?  The choices are
> tns:ContextType or tns:ServiceRef.
> The former would mean embedding the context structure within the child
> context, but this may be simpler and follows the format of child-context
> which it replaces.  The latter will be more compact, but it will be
> complicated since the user will need to dereference the ServiceRef.
> I will set the type as ContextType for now.  Let me know which you
> prefer though and I will change it.
>
> Regards,
> Simeon
>
> On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 15:45, Simeon Greene wrote:
> > see http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=136.
> >
> > The latest comments state:
> > Change parent context from list to zero or one occurrence and further
> > change
> > parentsā?T context to parentā?Ts context. Alistair motioned Greg second.
No
> > opposed. 8 in favor.
> >
> > It then goes on to say:
> > begin with passed context must set the parent context.
> >
> > A strict interpretation of the text makes these two excerpts
> > contradictory in my opinion.  The former excerpt says the element should
> > be optional "zero or one occurrence", yet the latter says that the begin
> > operation "must" set it.  This will cause a conflict between the schema
> > and the spec.  I recommend we either change "must" to "may" or make
> > parent context a mandatory element of the context.  I prefer the first
> > recommendation.
> >
>
>