[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i021 proposal
Anish I understand. I think that was also the motivation behind Gil's proposal (make it easy to tag all the inbound or all the outbound messages). However, I think that the most likely case is that the whole binding will be tagged. Typically not every binding is suitable for RM, because many systems generate HTTP bindings. So I think using PolicyAttachment to do the main work is probably the best case. WSDL and WSP are not exactly human friendly anyway - so we aren't really making things worse than they are already :) I'm guessing most systems will generate this automatically from a systems admin GUI. Paul Anish Karmarkar wrote: > Paul Fremantle wrote: >> 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. >> > > Makes sense. > >> In the proposed model if you want to require RM on every binding you >> need to add it to each binding. >> > > I was trying to see if there is an easier way (by tagging the > portType) for the situation where there is a portType which is bound > to SOAP/HTTP, SOAP/UDP, SOAP/SMTP, SOAP/XMPP, and SOAP/whatever. I > guess, every binding/port will have to be tagged instead > > -Anish > -- > >> 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]