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] conformance claims


Dear Greg and others,

Well, I am keen to see some text put into the WS-Context specification that
tackles the topic of conformance head on, so if "push comes to shove" I will
support our text as being much better than nothing.  However, I still think
that the structure that I offered would have been a better basis.  The
reason is that it brings out very clearly, by having a heading for each,
what sort of things conformance can be claimed for.  If you read your text
carefully you can spot some of them, but I do think we should be making this
into a 'party puzzle'.

So my compromise suggestion is that we first agree the list of 'things' for
which conformance can be claimed.  WE then have those as sub-headings of a
conformance section.  Then distribute the text you suggest below amongst the
sub-headings.

My list as a starter for agreement of 'things' for which conformance can be
claimed is :

Tools (though I think we should say that a tool should support / test for
conformance to one of the other classes of conformance)

XML documents (Schema and the various WSDL documents)

Context Manager

Context Response Handler

Context service

Context service user



PS I used the WSDL 2.0 (Core) current draft as the inspiration for my
original proposal.

Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
 
Cohesions  (TM)
 
Business transaction management software for application coordination
www.choreology.com
 
Choreology Ltd., 68 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9LJ     UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537   Fax: +44 (0) 870 7390077  Mobile: +44 (0) 7801
948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)


-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Pavlik [mailto:greg.pavlik@oracle.com] 
Sent: 10 September 2004 15:03
To: ws-caf
Subject: [ws-caf] conformance claims


Since there was some discussion that we should have a clear statement of 
what implementors/users of WS-Context must do, I took the action to do a 
writeup. Here's some (simple) proposed text for consideration on Monday. 
My goal is to help us close out this issue asap:

WS-Context Conformance Rules

The WS-Context specification defines a session model for webservices 
(the activity concept), a context to represent that model in executing 
systems, and endpoints to manage context lifecycle and contents.

The minimum useage of WS-Context is restricted to the pass by value 
model of the context structure itself. Conformant implementations MUST 
follow the rules specified in Section 3; lexical representations of the 
context must be valid according to the schema definition for 
ctx:ContextType.

All uses of elements derived from the type ref:ServiceRefType MUST 
include a valid Web service reference based on an identifiable Web 
services addressing specification.

Systems and protocols that leverage the pass-by-reference representation 
of context MUST support the Context Manager. Conformant implementations 
of the Context Manager MUST follow the rules stated in Section 4.

Context lifecycle demarcation and control is managed by the Context 
Service. Conformant implementations of the Context Service MUST follow 
the rules stated in Section 5.

All messages based on the normative WSDL provided in this specification 
MUST be augmented by a Web services addressing specification to support 
callback-style message exchange.

Specifications that build on WS-Context MUST satisfy all requirements 
for referencing specifications that are identified for contexts, 
context-services and context managers.



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