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: Whoever web services and Webber (was RE: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF)


Peter,

> I am not quite sure what you mean by correlate - our services 
> are stateless, and the other information in the message as a 
> whole identifies that you are the sender, which is the only 
> information of concern to us.

Fine - I didn't presume (or want) to know the details of your
implementation.
 
> oh. this is rather awkward, as the old version spec didn't 
> actually say what the required behaviour was. Please will 
> have you ensured clarification to the tc before the spec is 
> finalized. 

That may be a point to bring up as part of the TC effort. Certainly I
had a set of semantics associated with it in my head, but if they don't
match your assumed semantics then there is clearly a gap in the written
spec.

> > The point here is that I perceive value in the standardisation of 
> > mustPropagate and unique context id since they immediately 
> enable me 
> > to do message correlation in a standard way.
> 
> Yes, I agree there is some value, but it all depends on the 
> semantics of mustPropagate, which aren't defined anywhere in 
> draft 0.2 (at least, "mustPropagate" occurs only in xml, with 
> no explanation of what it means). So Whoever web services 
> might not be doing what you hoped. I'll raise an issue on 
> this, as it is a definable question.

As long as they propagate the context on messages that they send to me
which are the result of actions on similarly contextualised messages I
am happy.

> On the question of the type identification, I think you are 
> suggesting it can be omitted - I don't see how that can work. 

I am indeed saying that a plain vanilla context is useful.

> It is optional in the schema; my understanding of this is 
> that it is optional because it might be absent in 
> by-reference, though actually I think that's wrong too. If it 
> were to be omitted:
> 
> Suppose Whoever agreed with your interpretation, but wanted 
> to define their own activity that had independent boundaries 
> to yours. So on a message sent back to you there are two 
> contexts, containing identical elements apart from the value 
> of the context-identifier. So do you correlate this both ways ? 

No not necessarily - their work is not part of my activity, why would
they send me a context to a piece of work that I know nothing about?
Plus wouldn't the identifiers for those activities be different?

Can we therefore boil this down to an issue: that the semantics of
mustPropagate are not sufficiently defined in the spec?

Jim
--
http://jim.webber.name 


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