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: Spam: Re: [ws-caf] policy ai


Hi Greg,

Seems to me that the statement "will accept a context" (Supports) has to
relate to an operation on an endpoint. That fact needs to be
communicated somehow -- either by a static declaration or other form of
shared configuration, or by a dynamic endpoint location mechanism that
precedes operation invocation. The ability to state or express the
policy is insufficient without the communication of the policy. 

This is probably a question of ignorance on my part about what's out
there in terms of other standardization efforts, so apologies for lack
of omniscience ;-), but how do you see that part of the problem being
accomplished in practice for an app endpoint? We went round this from
various angles in BTP 1.1 and came up with the view, if I recall
correctly, that there were no mature general approaches to this problem.
That may have been wrong, or it may have been outdated by continuing
work elsewhere.

Thanks,

Alastair

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Pavlik [mailto:greg.pavlik@oracle.com] 
Sent: 26 July 2005 19:03
To: Green, Alastair J.
Cc: Mark Little; ws-caf
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]