RE: [ws-tx] Issue 021 - WS-C: Split out 002 d) -- Avoid normative statements on timing of sub-coordinator registration

["Peter Furniss" <peter.furniss@choreology.com>]

This escaped from my outbox before I'd checked it.

It should say that is issue 021, as in the subject line - but the
subject line should refer
to issue 002.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@choreology.com] 
> Sent: 21 December 2005 15:07
> To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-tx] Issue 021 - WS-C: Split out 007 d) -- Avoid 
> normative statements on timing of sub-coordinator registration
> 
> 
> 
> This is hereby identified as ws-tx issue 019.
> 
> Please follow up to this message or otherwise ensure your 
> subject line starts "Issue 019 - " 
>   (after any Re:, [ws-tx] etc)
> 
> Alastair pointed out his original message referred to 007 
> when it should have said 002. I have corrected the 
> misreferences below.
> 
> ==============================================
> 
> Issue name -- WS-C: Split out 002 d) -- Avoid normative statements on 
> timing of sub-coordinator registration
> 
> Target document and draft:
> 
> Protocol:  Coord
> 
> Artifact:  spec
> 
> Draft:
> 
> Coord spec working draft uploaded 2005-12-02
> 
> Link to the document referenced:
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15738/WS-Coo
rdination-
> 2005-11-22.pdf
> 
> Section and PDF line number:
> 
> Section 3 "Coordination Service", ll. 181-209
> 
> 
> Issue type:
> 
> Design / editorial
> 
> 
> Related issues:
> 
> 002, 018, 019, 020
> 
> 
> Issue Description:
> 
> This issue separates out sub-issue d) of Issue 002, which can be found
> here:
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/email/archi
ves/200512
> /msg00059.html
> 
> Avoid normative statements on timing of sub-coordinator registration.
> 
> 
> Issue Details:
> 
> [This issue stems from Choreology Contribution issue TX-17.]
> 
> The initial part of Section 3 (up to and inluding the diagram, Figure 
> 2., on p. 10) uses an example to convey three things:
> 
>     a) the basic interactions of a registering application 
> service and a
> 
> Registration Service, and their
>     relationship to Coordinators and Participants
>     
>     b) the notion of an interposed Coordinator, and
>     
>     c) some seemingly normative rules relating to how interposed 
> coordination works.
>  
> On the last point: There are two statements, which are too 
> restrictive 
> -- or perhaps which seem too
> restrictive because they are actually intended only as 
> examples of one 
> possible use of the protocol, but
> appear to have normative weight because there are no other 
> statements at
> 
> all in the specification about the
> behaviours being discussed.
> 
> The second of these statements is contained within the following 
> call-out which refers to the diagram. The statement is 
> flagged with the 
> inserted tag [Statement 2].
> 
> ll. 204-206
> 
>     "5. [Statement 2] This registration causes CoordinatorB 
> to forward 
> the registration onto CoordinatorA's
>     Registration service RSa, exchanging Endpoint References 
> for Yb and 
> the protocol service Ya. This forms a
>     logical connection between these Endpoint References that the 
> protocol Y can use."
> 
> The practice of having a subcoordinator delay registration with its 
> nominated superior coordinator until it
> first receives registration(s) from Participant(s) is viable, given 
> certain rules. So is the practice of
> eagerly registering subcoordinators as they are created. The 
> lazy/eager 
> choice is not the property of WS-
> Coordination, and the spec should make it clear that subcoordinator 
> registration time is not defined.
> 
> 
> Proposed Resolution:
> 
> Remove any normative statement relating to the timing of 
> sub-coordinator
> 
> registration, other than to state
> that the sub-coordinator must be registered to take part in activity 
> completion.
> 
>