[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: More thoughts on contexts (was RE: [ws-caf] Agenda for the demo application)
Hi Jim, Timeouts: it all depends what the timeout means. The hard part is the interpretation, and I think that must be known to the specific processor, not to the general contexts processor. So once again, we seem to end up employing a servant to open the door, when we are perfectly able-bodied. A standard model for hierarchical contexts is more interesting. One question I have is: how easily can I construct disjoint hierarchies? Let's say that the interposition concept is useful for transactions, but we want a flat security domain. I'm not sure what that would mean in practical processing terms either (carried together in a contexts wrapper? Separately?). Related question: in WS-TXM there is heavy emphasis on interposition, which is an example of hierarchical context. However, I cannot discern from the specs how the WS-CTX hierarchy is used to help this. Specifically, the WS-TXM protocols appear to defer to WS-CF for interpositon, but WS-CF does not seem to mandate any defined relationship between a Coordination Service and an ALS -- which seems to be the point of contact with WS-CTX as it currently stands. Alastair -----Original Message----- From: Jim Webber [mailto:Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk] Sent: 15 February 2004 23:55 To: Green, Alastair J.; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Agenda for the demo application Hey Alastair, [ker-snip] I think the WS-Context context structure gives you (at least) two wins over "ad-hoc" XML in your header blocks. i) There's a bunch of standard stuff like timeouts which is useful. ii) It gives you access to a standard model for hierarchical contexts which is also useful. Jim
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]