Re: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF

[Greg Pavlik <greg.pavlik@oracle.com>]

Jim, the issue with type derivation for contexts was linked to the 
problem of supporting multiple protocols (ALS's) in a single activity. 
Since the ALS functionality has been folded into the ContextService, 
there is no longer a problem and the WS-Context spec does not 
(currently) place normative requirements on dependent specs in this 
respect. Should it?

I should mention that type derivation is not dependent on substitution 
groups per se.

Jim Webber wrote:

>Hey Alastair:
>
>[snip]
>
>I think I see what you're saying - why bother wrapping, say, a WS-LRA
>context inside a WS-Context context when you could just put the WS-LRA
>context into a SOAP header directly. If that's what you mean then I
>think it's a reasonable point.
>
>However, for some of the work I'm doing now, just having a plain vanilla
>context is really quite useful.
>
>So: would it be correct of me to split your argument into to points?
>
>1. There is little perceived value in using the context structure to
>house other contexts.
>2. There is little value in WS-Context.
>
>For the first, the specs (used to) say that higher level contexts
>dervied from lower level contexts rather than being bundled inside them.
>That might have changed now (editors?) since pretty much no-one gets
>substitutionGroups (or so it would seem from the appalling support for
>them).
>
>For the second I respectifully disagree. In my work I have an
>"application X" context which ties together a bunch of services which
>for me comprise "application X".
>
>If I've misunderstood you, I appologise in advance.
>
>Jim
>--
>http://jim.webber.name 
>  
>