Re: [ws-rx] i021 proposal

[Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>]

Anish

I don't think I agree. The aim of the porttype is to provide an abstract 
interface. The interface has not even been bound to SOAP. In fact if you 
look at Apache WSIF (http://ws.apache.org/wsif  which I think Oracle 
uses in your Collaxa BPEL server), that binds portTypes to all kinds of 
other models including Java, EJB, CICS, etc. It isn't appropriate to 
specify that those use RM.

In the proposed model if you want to require RM on every binding you 
need to add it to each binding.

Paul

Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Thanks for sending this out. Generally, it looks good to me.
>
> One comment:
>
> > WS-PolicyAttachment [WS-PolicyAttachment] defines both abstract and
> > concrete attachment points in WSDL [WSDL1.1]. Because the RM policy
> > assertion specifies a concrete behavior, it MUST NOT be attached to
> > abstract constructs
>
> Is that quite true or necessary?
> 'Abstract,' I assume means binding/endpoint independent. For example, 
> the sept 2004 policy attachment spec says in section 4.1.2:
> "Since the wsdl:portType may be used by more than one binding, it is 
> RECOMMENDED that only policies containing abstract (i.e., binding 
> independent) assertions should be attached to this type of element."
>
> Now, if I want every binding/endpoint of a portType to support/require 
> WSRM (say it is a banking application portType) would it not be 
> reasonable to include the assertion in the portType?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Anish
> -- 
>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>> Proposal regarding issue 021. I'm not quite sure this is right yet, 
>> so I would appreciate feedback from the Policy experts.
>>
>> Based on CDII
>>
>> Delete 142-154 section 2.3 and replace with.
>>
>> 2.3 Assertion Attachment
>>
>> The RM assertion can have Service, Endpoint, Operation or Message 
>> Endpoint Policy Subjects [WS-PolicyAttachment].
>>
>> WS-PolicyAttachment [WS-PolicyAttachment] defines both abstract and 
>> concrete attachment points in WSDL [WSDL1.1]. Because the RM policy 
>> assertion specifies a concrete behaviour, it MUST NOT be attached to 
>> abstract constructs:
>>
>>    * wsdl:portType
>>    * wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation
>>    * wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input
>>      • wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output
>>      • wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault
>>    * wsdl:message
>>
>> The RM policy assertion MAY be attached to the following constructs
>> * wsdl:service
>> * wsdl:port
>> * wsdl:binding.
>> • wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation
>> • wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input
>> • wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output
>> • wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault
>>
>> If the RM assertion is attached to the wsdl:service construct, it 
>> MUST be considered to apply to all the wsdl:port's referenced in the 
>> binding.
>> If the RM assertion is attached to the wsdl:port construct, it MUST 
>> be considered to apply to all the wsdl:binding's referenced in the port.
>> If the RM assertion is attached to the wsdl:binding construct, it 
>> MUST be considered to apply to all the wsdl:operation's referenced in 
>> the binding.
>> If the RM assertion is attached to the wsdl:operation construct, it 
>> MUST be considered to apply to all the wsdl:input's, wsdl:output's 
>> and wsdl:fault's referenced in the operation.
>>
>> WS-Addressing allows for policy assertions to be included within an
>> EndpointReference. Per section 2.2 above, the presence of this
>> policy assertion in an EPR specifies the level of support for
>> WS-ReliableMessaging offered by that endpoint.
>>
>> Paul
>>

-- 

Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com