Re: [ws-caf] More thoughts on contexts (was RE: [ws-caf] Agenda for the demo application)

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

> >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?).
> >
> I think the specs are somewhat unclear, and I'll say frankly that I've
> been puzzled by language that suggests multiple ALS's may augment a
> single context. As a practical matter, I would expect them to be separate.
>

What? The specs. are unclear? Where? ;-)

I agree though. It was always my assumption that the term "context" in this
sense was a more general thing and not a single wrapper element that
contained all contexts. So I'd expect them to be separate too.

> >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.
> >
> >
> Wouldn't you agree that WS-Context focuses on nested hierarchies rather
> than interposed relationships? In this respect, WS-Context is quite
> helpful.

I agree. It's worth posting the potential TXM issue separately though, for
future reference when we do TXM.

Mark.

>
> >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
> >
> >
>
>