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] proposal towards a resolution for issue 132




Green, Alastair J. wrote:

>I disagree with Peter (!) The meaning of a context may be circumstantial
>or implicit.
> 
>If all I want out of the base context is a guid, then that is
>reasonable. Any other information that allows me to understand the
>nature of the referencing specification can be supplied in the base
>context, but it could also be incorporated in the extension, or it may
>not be necessary at all in a particular application, which "knows" that
>a WS-Context is just being used as a handy guid, or (if extended) is of
>a singular type. 
>  
>

I think it would be a profound error to allow for services to attach a 
semantic to the base context without identifiying the application of the 
semantic; we would introduce a scenario that allows for ambiguity of 
meaning in the expressed expectations of service consumer (or it's 
hosting infrastructure).

> 
>If I have only one type of context in my application, why should I be
>forced to identify that type, when the knowledge of type can only be
>used to differentiate contexts?
> 
>
>Further: the "meaning" of a context may be given by some more complex
>deduced type resulting from particular combination of values within the
>extended context. I do not think we can mandate a single view or
>expression of type.
> 
>I do not object to a type field, which I think makes it easy to do a
>popular thing (get the context service to yield up contexts of different
>types), but I don't think it should be mandatory. One could also "type"
>(specialize) the yielded context after the context service manufactures
>it, or not type it at all. All are valid approaches.
> 
>This does illustrate (in my view) the exiguous nature of the value of
>the base context. That should not be concealed by artificially padding
>the base context with more content that it must hold on grounds of
>universal need. 
> 
>Alastair
> 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] 
>Sent: 24 June 2004 12:34
>To: ws-caf
>Subject: [ws-caf] proposal towards a resolution for issue 132
> 
>http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=132
> 
>There was some discussion on this topic in the mailing list and I agree
>with Peter (!) The context id is not in and of itself sufficient
>information to determine the meaning of a context.
> 
>Mark.
> 
>----
>Mark Little,
>Chief Architect, Transactions,
>Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
> 
>www.arjuna.com
>
>  
>



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