[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021
I agree that we shd allow the RM assertion to be attached to a WSDL message definition. This allows us to say that a single message shd be transmitted reliably. We also shd spell out the semantics of attaching the RM assertion to a WSDL definition, such as port or binding, that includes both input and output messages. To my mind, this means that messages in both direction MAY/MUST be transmitted reliably. Just trying to be clear! All the best, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:05 PM > To: Marc Goodner > Cc: Gilbert Pilz; Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021 > > Marc Goodner wrote: > > Just expanding on the subject level, from section 4.1.2 on Endpoint > > Policy Subject in WS-PolicyAttachment [1]: > > > > > > > > "An Endpoint Policy Subject applies to behaviours > associated with an > > entire endpoint of > > > > the service, irrespective of any message exchange made." > > > > Not a policy expert, but my interpretation is that I don't > think that precludes us from defining assertions that apply > to only in messages or out-message. WS-PolicyAttachment > framework defines a framework, but the assertion definer > defines the semantics of the assertion. I.e., it should be ok > to say that my BAZ assertion means that only in-bound > messages are reliable -- and that applies to the entire > endpoint (irrespective of the message exchanges or operations). > > Having said that. I don't think Gil's proposal goes far > enough. Yes, it works quite well for the most common case > (one-way, request-response). > But when we go to WSDL 2.0, this looks rather short-sighted. > It seems to me that the policy assertion subject should be > 'message' -- which provides the granularity that provides the > most flexibility. After all we are talking about reliable messaging. > > My $.02 > > -Anish > -- > > > > > > > To me that seems to say we can't declare that it doesn't apply to > > inbound or outbound messages that are part of the endpoint. > If that is > > what you want you would use operation level subject. I still think > > endpoint subject is what you would almost always want, but > we've been > > talking about this long enough that I can see a case for operation. > > > > > > > > 1 http://specs.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/policy/ws-policyattachment.pdf > > > > > > > > Marc Goodner > > > > Technical Diplomat > > > > Microsoft Corporation > > > > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > > > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:35 PM > > *To:* Marc Goodner; Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021 > > > > > > > > Comments in line . . . > > > > > > > > - gp > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > *From:* Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:10 PM > > *To:* Patil, Sanjay; Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021 > > > > Two immediate concerns I have here. > > > > > > > > One, I don't think it is right to say the AS and AD > have to use RM. > > It is the RMS and RMD that use RM so I think the > original text is > > correct. I also don't see how this relates to the > multiple endpoints > > via one RMS/RMD as you say below. In that case isn't > the original > > text still more accurate? Still either way this is probably > > splitting hairs, it doesn't change that the assertion > is there or > > what it means. > > > > > > > > The RMS and RMD don't **use** RM they **implement** RM. > They are the > > things that implement the protocol described in the > WS-RM spec. When > > you are talking about describing policy in something > like WSDL you > > are indicating if/how you will make use of the > facilities that the > > RMS and RMD provide. > > > > > > > > Two, I don't think even with two different assertions > we can define > > them to apply just to inbound or outbound messages. I'm fairly > > certain that WSDL 1.1 and WS-PolicyAttachment prevent > that scoping. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand why this would be the case. > Can you expand? > > > > > > > > Marc Goodner > > > > Technical Diplomat > > > > Microsoft Corporation > > > > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > > > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > *From:* Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 01, 2006 7:27 AM > > *To:* Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > *Subject:* [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021 > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks to Gil for making a concrete proposal. Hopefully > this leads > > to a discussion on the list. > > > > > > > > I have changed the subject line to indicate the issue number. I > > think folks have better memory of issue numbers than AI numbers. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Sanjay > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, Jan 31, 2006 23:01 PM > > *To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > *Subject:* [ws-rx] RE: Action Item #0078 > > > > In light of the (pending) resolutions to i086 and > i087 it seemed > > simpler to present my proposal in the form of > complete drafts of > > the WS-RM Policy specification. Attached are two > PDF documents. > > One is a clean version of what the WS-RM Policy > spec would look > > like with my proposed changes. The other contains > change bars > > between my proposal and the current editors draft of WS-RM > > Policy (cd-02 with Marc's clean ups applied). > > > > > > > > You will note that my proposal includes the > proposed resolutions > > to i086 and i087. There was no simple way to > present my ideas > > without doing this. > > > > > > > > You may also note that I have changed line 93 from: > > > > > > > > "The RM policy assertion indicates that the RM Source and RM > > Destination MUST use WS-ReliableMessaging [WS-RM > > <outbind://153/#WSRM>] to ensure reliable delivery > of messages." > > > > > > > > to: > > > > > > > > "In general a RM policy assertion indicates that > the Application > > Source and Application Destination MUST use > WS-ReliableMessaging > > [WS-RM <outbind://153/#WSRM>] to ensure reliable delivery of > > messages". > > > > > > > > I did this because I think that policy assertions > have nothing > > to do with sequences or the entities that maintain > them (i.e. > > the RMS and RMD) except that they indicate that some, > > unspecified sequence may or must be used to ensure > the delivery > > of inbound or outbound messages. I think this confusion over > > endpoints (and the policies attached to those endpoints) and > > sequences lay at the heart of our difficulties with > the idea of > > multiple endpoints with different policies sharing the same > > sequence. This change may be considered by some to be the > > resolution to a separate issue. If anyone has any objections > > I'll back it out and go through the process of raising a > > separate issue and making a separate proposal to address it. > > > > > > > > - gp > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]