Re: [ws-caf] RE: close issue 134?

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

> I am not sure what you mean in your last sentence since it seems to be
> missing a verb.  However, I believe you have a reasonable summary in your
> middle paragraph.  My summary might have been a tad more general (avoiding
> specific solutions):

Put it down to typing dyslexia.

Mark.

>
> "Should the WS-Contest specification (or schema) provide an in-line
> mechanism for identifying which added content must be understood?"
>
> Generalizing the question allows for either a global attribute for use on
> any extended content or a local attribute on the container itself (which
> might repeat).  And, yes Peter, we have a question for the "by reference"
> case since it is unclear (a priori) who all might see a particular context
> structure and therefore what each "viewer" must understand.
>
> thanx,
> doug
>
> On 12-Jul-04 08:27, Mark Little wrote:
> > Doug, in fact I think that's where the idea of the context
mustUnderstand
> > originally came from. So let's see if I can summarise this as an issue
(and
> > feel free to correct/augment):
> >
> > should the extensibility element have mustUnderstand associated with it?
> >
> > Or are you mustUnderstand for more elements in the context structure?
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Doug Bunting" <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>
> > To: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>
> > Cc: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>; "ws-caf"
> > <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ws-caf] RE: close issue 134?
> >
> >
> >
> >>Peter and Mark,
> >>
> >>Issue 129 did not "remove mustUnderstand entirely" but instead dropped a
> >>WS-Context specific description of this SOAP attribute.  We deferred any
> >>specific semantics or requirements for this attribute to the referencing
> >>specification, if that proves necessary.
> >>
> >>For issue 134, I believe we still need a ctx:mustUnderstand attribute
> >>because soap:mustUnderstand does not address understanding of
information
> >>extending the base WS-Context structure.  We have an extensibility point
> >>that may contain information that both sides must understand but may
also
> >>contain information of interest primarily to one side only.  While I can
> >>imagine that many referencing specifications would clarify where
> >>information might be added that is of interest only to one side (say,
> >>internal references you need when processing the set of related messages
> >>defined for a context type), I do not think it appropriate to require
full
> >>a priori knowledge of this important facet.  As a general practise,
> >>extensibility points should support in-band identification of the
content
> >>that must be understood.
> >>
> >>thanx,
> >>doug
> >>
> >>On 06-Jul-04 05:59, Furniss, Peter wrote:
> >>
> >>>Mark,
> >>>
> >>>Just to be clear, there are (or were) two mustUnderstand attributes
> >>>referred to in 0.3-and-earlier  - one defined in SOAP, which the WS-CTX
> >>>spec said had to be ="true", and one defined in ws-context schema as an
> >>>attribute of participating-services-list, alongside the mustPropagate
> >>>attribute.
> >>>
> >>>129 concerned only the SOAP one.
> >>>134 concerned mostly the ws-context:mustUnderstand, and a passing
> >>>mention of mustPropagate. The latter was removed by 131.
> >>>
> >>>I am pleased at this resolution.
> >>>
> >>>Peter
> >>>
> >>>    -----Original Message-----
> >>>    *From:* Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> >>>    *Sent:* 06 July 2004 13:45
> >>>    *To:* Furniss, Peter; ws-caf
> >>>    *Subject:* Re: [ws-caf] RE: close issue 134?
> >>>
> >>>    Yes, 129 removes mustUnderstand entirely and 134 does likewise with
> >>>    mustPropagate.
> >>>
> >>>    I'll mark the issue as closed and refer to those other issues.
> >>>
> >>>    Thanks,
> >>>
> >>>    Mark.
> >>>
> >>>        ----- Original Message -----
> >>>        *From:* Furniss, Peter <mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>
> >>>        *To:* Mark Little <mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com> ; ws-caf
> >>>        <mailto:ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >>>        *Sent:* Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:40 PM
> >>>        *Subject:* [ws-caf] RE: close issue 134?
> >>>
> >>>        Yes, if I understand the intent correctly
> >>>
> >>>        129 concerned the SOAP:mustUnderstand attribute in
> >>>        ws-context:context elements in SOAP Headers. The resolution of
> >>>        129, as I understand it, will be to remove any specific
> >>>        statement about the SOAP:mustUnderstand (it may note that the
> >>>        attribute is available and can have either value, as is
normally
> >>>        the case for SOAP Header elements.
> >>>
> >>>        134 concerned the wsctx:mustUnderstand attribute which was
> >>>        (incorrectly) defined as an attribute of
> >>>        participating-services-list. I assume the intent is to remove
it
> >>>        completely. If that is the intent, I concur.
> >>>
> >>>        Peter
> >>>
> >>>            -----Original Message-----
> >>>            *From:* Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> >>>            *Sent:* 06 July 2004 12:24
> >>>            *To:* Furniss, Peter; ws-caf
> >>>            *Subject:* close issue 134?
> >>>
> >>>            Peter, I believe that this issue
> >>>
> >
> > (http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=134)
> >
> >>>            is no longer required because of the resolution to issues
> >>>            129 and 131. Since you raised it I wanted to check before
> >>>            doing anything (or proposing to do anything).
> >>>
> >>>            Mark.
> >>>
> >>
> >
>