[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Spam: Re: [ws-caf] policy ai
Green, Alastair J. wrote: >I took the phrase "reasoning about the relationships" to be of wider >significance -- similar language has been used in your and Greg's >discourse on the (alleged) need to know what the endpoints are up to, >and thence to the idea of an ACID-only protocol, which I think is a >rather stunted beast. > >The fact that the declarative use of the transaction context on receipt >by a bean is a private matter is one example of the ability to be >largely ignorant of what transactions means to the interlocutor, but >still be able to make use of them. > >On the narrow point, it seems that any way of marking an endpoint as >being capable of receiving a context is better than none. > >In that respect I think that fixing on something that actually works is >better than trying to second-guess the next three twists and turns on >the secondary roads running through WS-Land. > >Is there a way of doing this which will work with current WSDL and not >just 2.0? > > > I'm not sure why this needs to be related to any version of WSDL per se: we will need to bind to some policy language; I presume that at some point that will be based on WS-Policy. Apologies for brevity on these threads, I'm on travel. Greg >Alastair > >Alastair J. Green >CEO and CTO >Choreology Ltd >68 Lombard Street >London EC3V 9LJ >www.choreology.com > >+44 870 739 0050 >+44 870 739 0051 (fax) >+44 795 841 2107 (mobile) > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] >Sent: 26 July 2005 15:31 >To: Green, Alastair J. >Cc: Greg Pavlik; ws-caf >Subject: Spam: Re: [ws-caf] policy ai > > > >Green, Alastair J. wrote: > > > >>AJG: This is, I think, a slight overstatement :-). You can reason, but >>only within limits -- and without requiring omniscience. >> >>[stuff deleted] >> >> >> >I think Greg's point was more that a user of an EJB cannot tell what the > >transactional requirements are for the EJB. There's no equivalent of >CosTransactions::TransactionalObject and because IIOP is not mandated, >there's no way of delving within the object's IOR at the client side. > >Mark. > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]