[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] proposed resolution for issue 129
I don't have any problem with the kavi vote, if read in conjunction with the issue it is about, and I have already voted in line with my technical view (to avoid any suggestion of lobbying :-), that the ws-context spec should not mandate a particular value for soap:mustUnderstand, and should leave it available to ref. spec (and individual instance of use actually, but that wouldn't affect the ws-ctx text) I was challenging your suggested addition that ws-ctx should declare its own default, since I don't think it can have any effect. It would just be wasted words in the spec (which might trouble the reader). Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Little [mailto:Mark.Little@arjuna.com] > Sent: 27 June 2004 19:12 > To: Furniss, Peter; Mark Little; ws-caf > Subject: RE: [ws-caf] proposed resolution for issue 129 > > > Peter, if you're having difficulty interpreting the current > Kavi vote then > maybe I can help: I think given your description you should > vote to accept > using soap:mustUnderstand and take a default of false, since > that is in line > with the soap default. > > All the best, > > Mark. > > >===== Original Message From "Furniss, Peter" > ><Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> > ===== > >1. I don't think we can define a default for > soap:mustUnderstand with > >ws-context - at least, not usefully. > > > >2. If the receiving implmentation doesn't recognise the ws-context > >namespace, then it won't know of any any ws-context-defined > default for > >soap:mustUnderstand, so will use the soap-defined default. > (and ignore > >the header) > > > >3. If the receiving implementation does recognise the ws-context > >namespace then it "understands" and the mustUnderstand setting is > >irrelevant. > > > >4. There is the possibility of an implementation recognising the > >ws-context namespace but not the context type. This could be > affected > >by a ws-context-defined default for soap:mustUnderstand. > >Since a receiver as in 2 would ignore a context with no explicit > >soap:mustUnderstand, it is > >hard to see what point there would be in making this > semi-understander > >throw a fault. > > > >5. The original text (the target of this issue) was about ws-context > >mandating an explicit override of the default (i.e. > soap:mustUnderstand > >was required to be present, and be ="true"). > >A referencing specification could legitimately mandate that > (though the > >arguments about > >the wisdom of such a requirement apply). But ws-context > should not, and > >leave it to the > >particular use to decide what setting to use, with the soap-defined > >default applying if > >the field is omitted. > > > >6. My conclusion in 4 may be contrary to what I sent earlier about > >keeping the ws-context:mustUnderstand. It would only be > useful to keep > >that if there is a crossover - soap and wsctx values different. It > >seems pointless to have soap=false, wsctx=true, as said in > 4. If there > >is significant behaviour defined in the > >base ws-context, it is just possible to justify soap=true, > wsctx=false - > >it would mean the base > >behaviour is required, but the extension behaviour is not. Since the > >base behaviour is under > >discussion on other issues, I think the resolution of this > (the survival > >of wsctx:mustUnderstand) > >should be deferred. [and we need an issue on it, but that > can wait till > >this one is settled] > > > >Peter > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mark Little [mailto:Mark.Little@arjuna.com] > >> Sent: 27 June 2004 01:52 > >> To: Furniss, Peter; Mark Little; ws-caf > >> Subject: RE: [ws-caf] proposed resolution for issue 129 > >> > >> > >> It does define a default, which is false, but there is no > requirement > >> for us to adopt that default. Hence the option to the TC. > >> > >> Mark. > >> > >> >===== Original Message From "Furniss, Peter" > >> ><Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> > >> ===== > >> >This is the soap:mustUnderstand, yes (the context > >> mustUnderstand is the > >> >subject of 134, and may or may not survive). > >> > > >> >Doesn't soap define a default (false, i think). Do we need > >> to define a > >> >further one ? > >> > > >> >Peter > >> > > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] > >> >Sent: 24 June 2004 12:25 > >> >To: ws-caf > >> >Subject: [ws-caf] proposed resolution for issue 129 > >> > > >> > > >> >http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=129 > >> > > >> >I'd like to propose that we change the text to agree with > >> this, i.e., > >> >that mustUnderstand should be defined by referencing > specifications. > >> >The only caveat would be: should there be a default and > if so, what > >> >value to use? I think for interoperability purposes there > >> should be a > >> >default and it should be false. > >> > > >> >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]