[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: >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. > > Ultimately it has to be enforced for an operation, but associating it to, say, a port would be the equivalent of saying "all operations on this port". How the policy is expressed and communicated in practice is really an detail of the deployment: could be bound to uddi, via a policy document obtained through a metadata exchange handshake, or directly embedded in the WSDL. At this point, the status of WS-Policy and associated specs is a blocking factor for just about every TC/wg/whatever, not just this one. I suggest we follow the WS-RX TC model and move forward with the assumption that those specs or some alternative will find their way to a standards body in the near future, though I realize this is a highly imperfect model. >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That may have been wrong, or it may have been outdated by continuing 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]