[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021
Umit, I think I'm starting to see your and Anish's point on message level subject. My concerns could be mitigated by what you suggest regarding specifying the relation of using message level subject to inbound and outbound. I was lazy in my thoughts around operation; you are of course right that doesn't solve the inbound/outbound issue. I certainly agree with keeping endpoint subject. I'm a lot more open to the idea of message level than I have been in the past so long as endpoint subject is kept. I look forward to seeing what Paul puts together on this. Marc Goodner Technical Diplomat Microsoft Corporation Tel: (425) 703-1903 Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ -----Original Message----- From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 6:17 PM To: Marc Goodner; Anish Karmarkar Cc: Gilbert Pilz; Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021 > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] > Sent: Thursday, Feb 02, 2006 12:49 PM > To: Anish Karmarkar > Cc: Gilbert Pilz; Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021 > > I don't understand how you reached your interpretation of the text I > quoted. > > Message level subject goes to far IMO. I understand we're > talking about > reliable messaging, but why must it match the flexibility of WSDL in > terms of how it is applied? I can't envision any practical application > to tweek it by individual messages on the endpoint. > > So going to message level seems like it would open a lot of other > potential problems in terms of conditions we would need to > clarify. What > is the benefit of making it that flexible? Who are we > helping? What are > we enabling? I just don't see it. > Let me turn the question around. -- why do you think the message level subject vs operation subject is harmful in solving particular case? -- Can you quantify the problems that you see with message policy subject? Please be specific. I am not advocating free for all Message policy subject, but it seems to me that we need to do BOTH of the following to solve this problem: (a) Allow message level subject for attachment (Granularity) (b) Allow the attachment to appear ONLY within the context of inbound messages in a binding/operation/message in a WSDL document in the wsrmp text (Scoping to inbound messages in WSDL). This would solve i021 and it will be consistent with WS-Policy Attachment. Further this does not get into the problem of what happens to outbound messages. Operation level subject unfortunately covers both inbound and outbound messages in an exchange and I am very weary of that. IMO, stating that simply the assertion applies to inbound messages without using the message Policy Subject would be a mistake. However, message Policy subject on its own is an overkill too. Therefore, we need to combine both requirements and state them in conjunction with each other. > Marc Goodner > Technical Diplomat > Microsoft Corporation > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ > I don't see this particular option as one of the proposals and I would like to put it on the table. Thanks. --umit > > -----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]