[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification
In the same way that saying nothing about something can be read by different vendors in different ways to imply conformance. This is a age-old "feature" of standards. You should know that from having worked on the JTA ;-) Basically: if you don't say anything then everybody can interpret the lack of information in their own manner and there is no way to prove the original intent of the authors. Mark. Ram Jeyaraman wrote: >> Precisely because we do not know what the RS will be or want to do, >> > and we wish to make sure that restrictions are not implied by our > silence. > > How does silence imply restrictions? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@erebor.co.uk] > Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 2:44 PM > To: Ram Jeyaraman; Mark Little > Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification > > Ram asks: > > "Why should a specification make such a general statement?" > > Precisely because we do not know what the RS will be or want to do, and > we wish to make sure that restrictions are not implied by our silence. > For example, to make sure the following statements are invalid: > > - WS-C can only be used for transaction protocols > > - If <x> is optional in WS-C, an RS cannot forbid <x> when WS-C > is used with the RS > > - If <x> is optional in WS-C, an RS cannot require <x> when WS-C > is used with the RS > > - This protocol A cannot legitimately use WS-C because the > specification of A is proprietary and unpublished > > - This end-user application cannot use WS-C because what is > added to WS-C is only defined in some of the comments in the code > > Of course, if we are sure no-one would be so daft as to make any of > those statements, then we don't need to have the longer RS definition. > But some remarkably daft statements are sometimes made about standards > and having chapter and verse to contradict them can be useful. > > Peter > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com] > Sent: 05 May 2006 19:21 > To: Mark Little > Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification > > > We really do not know at this point, how this affects other > specifications and implementations, and what the implications are. > > Why should a specification make such a general statement? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com] > Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 3:27 AM > To: Ram Jeyaraman > Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification > > I disagree. In fact, how much more general a definition can you get ;-)? > > Mark. > > > Ram Jeyaraman wrote: > >> It is hard to anticipate how other specifications from other standards >> > > >> bodies that may refer to the WS-Coordination specification are defined >> > > >> and used. Further, the current WS-Coordination specification does not >> preclude the possibility of referencing specifications restricting the >> > > >> optional behavior described in the WS-Coordination specification. >> >> So, it is probably best not to make a statement about Referencing >> specifications. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 1:52 PM >> To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification >> >> This is identified as WS-TX issue 058. >> >> Please ensure follow-ups have a subject line starting "Issue 058 - >> definition of Referencing Specification". >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 9:21 AM >> To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: [ws-tx] NEW issue: definition of Referencing Specification >> >> NOTE: Please defer discussions on this issue until a time this issue >> > is > >> accepted and is assigned a number by the TC. >> >> Reference documents: >> >> >> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17311/ws > >> tx-wscoor-1.1-spec-cd-01.pdf >> >> with amendment from issue 030 >> >> Description: >> >> Text within WS-C refers to Referencing Specification. We have no >> > formal > >> definition of that. >> >> Resolution: >> >> One or more other specifications, such as (but not limited to) >> WS-AtomicTransaction may reference the WS-Coordination specification. >> Referencing Specifications are generally used to construct concrete >> protocols based on WS-Coordination. The usage of optional items in >> WS-Coordination, or those protocol aspects where terms such as MAY or >> SHOULD are used, may be further restricted by the requirements of a >> Referencing Specification. For the purpose of this document, the term >> > > >> Referencing Specification covers both formal specifications and more >> general applications that use WS-Coordination. >> >> Mark. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]