OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-caf message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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




Furniss, Peter wrote:
Greg,

<snip the earlier part of the alastair .. thread>

  
A further comment on the IBM/MS product specs: there are in 
fact three 
contextualization mechanisms: one in WS-Coordination, one in 
WS-ReliableMessaging, and one in WS-Addressing. Putting aside 
WS-Addressing for a moment since it introduces a new model to the web 
services environment that I don't want to argue about here, let me 
observe that there is no fundamental distinction between the 
lifecycle 
control interface in WS-Coordination and WS-ReliableMessaging. Why 
shouldn't these be based on a common model? Wouldn't that in fact be 
simpler and less error prone? From there, it seems a small step to 
imagine the reliability and coordination/transaction contexts 
having a 
common root. I submit that this is in fact a flaw, not a strength, of 
the specification set; they they are unnecessarily complex due to the 
failure to deal with common constructs, idioms and patterns as, well, 
things-in-common.

    

Well the WS-Coordination and WS-RM both have equivalent of "begin".
WS-RM doesn't always use it, 
and when it is used, it is asked of the eventual receiver. The
termination sequences are different, since WS-RM is just stopping, and
WS-Coordination will have delegated to a transaction protocol. 

As contextualization, it is true that a message carrying the relevant
headers is "in the context" of those headers, and subject to their
implications. But the same is true of more or less any header - that's
what they're for. WS-Addressing is particularly interesting because it
is essentially "opaque context" - the reference properties don't need to
contain any kind of identifier in the ws-context sense at all (it might
tell the receiver which database to look in, but since only the receiver
knows what they meant, that's fine - it's just a piece of syntactic
partitioning of the address)
Is it fine? What if it happens to conflict with another header since there are no restrictions? I'd like to suggest that WS-Addressing would benefit from a container and that this is generally a problem for contextualization based solely on headers.

. The other two would have an identifier but
that's the only thing they share, I think.

Peter
  


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]