Re: [ws-rx] i021 proposal

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

Anish,

No, I don't think that is a good idea.
What if I wanted to use the service bound to WebSphere MQ?
Clearly, in that context, WS-RM is unnecessary
to achieve the reliability that is desired.

The submission spec constrained against
the attachment of the assertion to the portType. I see
no reason to change that.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
wrote on 02/09/2006 02:50:02 AM:

> 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
> >