[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]