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] 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]