[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] the issue on Context type identification
Green, Alastair J. wrote: >No, that's a mishearing or a misunderstanding. > >It was tabled without objection, i.e. deferred for consideration at the >next meeting. > > OK. Like I said, I haven't seen the minutes, which is why I thought it had been un-tabled. Mark. >I asked if there was a way of untabling it for an e-vote before the F2F, >if the e-discussion got far enough to make things clear, and Martin felt >not. > >I was trying to answer your concern about delay, while allowing time for >the extra consideration to take place. > >So, I am still making arguments for my tabled motion, and hoping others >will chip in to put me right, or support me, or amend my proposal. >Hopefully this will allow a rapid resolution right at the start of the >F2F. > >Alastair > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] >Sent: 23 June 2005 15:48 >To: Green, Alastair J. >Cc: Newcomer, Eric; ws-caf >Subject: Re: [ws-caf] the issue on Context type identification > >I haven't seen the minutes from Monday's call yet, but I thought the >motion was withdrawn pending further discussion. I seem to recall you >saying you wanted to "un-table" it (my phrase). > >Mark. > > >Green, Alastair J. wrote: > > > >>We do have a proposal, which is my motion from the last meeting, which >>has been tabled. It was, to paraphrase: to have an optional >>WS-Context-defined context-identifying attribute whose value is a URI. >> >>I moved to table (U.S. English sense) on the grounds that Greg believed >>(and Kevin disbelieved) that this feature was possible to achieve >>through existing facilities (attribute extension, if I understood >>correctly), and that therefore my proposal was moot, unnecessary, >>redundant etc. >> >>On subsequent reflection, I'm not sure that the issue is >> >> >XML-mechanical. > > >>The proposal to have a value which is opaque is important in this >>proposal. According to me, there are two ways you can do this. All the >>parties in a particular contractually-governed interaction can agree >>that a header element attribute of name N, value type TV means: treat >> >> >as > > >>a context, or you can write that kind of convention down once in a >>single standard specification, and decide what the value of N and TV >> >> >are > > >>within the standard spec's namespace etc. >> >>Contract or statute, if you like. >> >>However, I am not an expert in the mechanics of XML, and I've learnt >>that those who are can throw a different light on these kinds of >>statements or assumptions by non-experts like me. >> >>So I am waiting for someone who is a mechanical expert to say: "that's >> >> >a > > >>wrong-headed way of posing the problem", or "OK, you are right to pose >>the problem in that way: implementation choices do not contradict or >>alter the overall approach being considered". >> >>If the experts say the latter, then I think the statutory approach is >>preferable, which is my motion as it stands. >> >>This will give Kevin's customers the opportunity to build what he >> >> >wants, > > >>will give Peter's customers the opportunity to build what he wants, >> >> >will > > >>give the sceptics the opportunity to do nothing, and will clear the >>issue off the table. >> >>Procedurally: if the mechanical experts will speak, then once we have >>listened to them we can either vote the tabled motion up or down at the >>F2F, or we can have amendments etc to make counterproposals. >> >>Alastair >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] >>Sent: 23 June 2005 15:09 >>To: Newcomer, Eric >>Cc: ws-caf >>Subject: Re: [ws-caf] the issue on Context type identification >> >>I don't think so at the moment, but I'd like to think we could be by >> >> >the > > >>end of the week if we put our heads together and really drive this as a >> >> > > > >>priority. >> >>Mark. >> >> >>Newcomer, Eric wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Are we at the point at which we have one or more concrete proposals we >>>can vote on? >>> >>>Eric >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] >>>Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 6:36 AM >>>To: 'ws-caf' >>>Subject: [ws-caf] the issue on Context type identification >>> >>>I'm conscious that there has been very little follow up on the only >>>outstanding issue we have against WS-Context: whether or not (and >>>potentially how) we can identify an element within a SOAP header as a >>>context. I'd like to encourage people to discuss this via email before >>> >>> > > > >>>the face-to-face next week so we can close this issue down quickly and >>> >>> > > > >>>move on to the WS-ACID specification. >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>Mark. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Mark Little Chief Architect Arjuna Technologies Ltd (www.arjuna.com)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]