← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Re: [sca-assembly] ISSUE-137: Clarify the use of a binding name in areference target - proposal (d)
Yes. Nice improvement. I updated the proposal with these words and I also reworded the last paragraph of <binding-name> section to read more closely to your last paragraph for the <service-name> section. I also adjusted the words "only one" to "one and only one". (See attached file: sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03+issue137d.doc) Dave Booz STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC "Distributed objects first, then world hunger" Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093 e-mail: Simon Nash ---07/02/2009 09:54:19 AM---Dave, If we are going to make these bullets parallel, I think we need to From: Simon Nash <> To: David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS Cc: Date: 07/02/2009 09:54 AM Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] ISSUE-137: Clarify the use of a binding name in a reference target - proposal (c) Dave, If we are going to make these bullets parallel, I think we need to go a bit further than you are suggesting. I think the second bullet would become something like the following: <service-name> is the name of the target service within the component. If <service-name> is present, the component service with @name corresponding to <service-name> MUST be used for the wire. [ASM600xx] If there is no component service with @name corresponding to <service-name>, the SCA runtime MUST raise an error. [ASM600xx] If <service-name> is not present, the target component MUST have only one service with an interface that is a compatible superset of the wire source’s interface and satisfies the policy requirements of the wire source, and the SCA runtime MUST use this service for the wire. [ASM600xx] Simon David Booz wrote: > Simon, > > Thanks for clarifying your point. I was certainly aware of the impact of > this change. In the past we didn't have interface compatibility rules on > which to base this sort of capability, nor did we have the effects of > policy well understood. > > Taking into account the subtle nature of this, I'm now wondering if I > should change the second bullet (which describes <service-name>) to an > RFC2119 statement, similar to the last paragraph of the 3rd bullet. > > Dave Booz > STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture > Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC > "Distributed objects first, then world hunger" > Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093 > e-mail: > > Inactive hide details for Simon Nash ---07/01/2009 04:53:04 PM---Dave, > I'm sorry that we ran out of time on Tuesday's call befoSimon Nash > ---07/01/2009 04:53:04 PM---Dave, I'm sorry that we ran out of time on > Tuesday's call before we could > > > From: > Simon Nash <> > > To: > David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS > > Cc: > > > Date: > 07/01/2009 04:53 PM > > Subject: > Re: [sca-assembly] ISSUE-137: Clarify the use of a binding name in a > reference target - proposal (c) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Dave, > I'm sorry that we ran out of time on Tuesday's call before we could > finish the discussion of policy matching for target URIs. > > In an attempt to save time on next week's call, I'll summarize my > point here. I hope this clarifies things rather than making the > discussion even more confused! > > From the spec words before proposal 137c, it was only valid to omit > the <service-name> if there was exactly one compatible service > on the component. So, if a component MyComp has services "Foo" > and "Bar", and the interfaces of "Foo" and "Bar" are both compatible > with the reference interface, it would be necessary to specify > either "MyComp/Foo" or "MyComp/Bar" explicitly in the reference URI > instead of just "MyComp". This is irrespective of whether polices > match or don't match, because policy matching is not part of the > definition of interface compatibilty. > > The wiring rules require interface compatibility, and they also > require matching policies on reference and service. So if "Foo" has > matching policies and "Bar" does not, the target "MyComp/Foo" would > be OK and the target "MyComp/Bar" would be an error. > > The 137c proposal would make one change to this: it would make > "MyComp" a valid shorthand for "MyComp/Foo" based on the additional > policy matching rule. It would leave the other cases as before, with > "MyComp/Foo" being OK and "MyComp/Bar" being an error. > > If you (or others) interpreted the previous words as allowing "MyComp" > in this case, then the new words are equivalent and clearer. > > If anyone interpreted the previous words as not allowing "MyComp" in > ths case (as I did), then the new words would change this. However, > I don't object to making this change. One point in its favour is that > the rule stated in the new words is consistent with how autowiring works. > > Simon > > Mike Edwards wrote: > > > > Folks, > > > > This looks good to me. > > > > +1 > > > > Yours, Mike. > > > > Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO. > > Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC. > > IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain. > > Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431 > > Email: > > > > > > From: David Booz <> > > To: > > Date: 29/06/2009 21:05 > > Subject: [sca-assembly] ISSUE-137: Clarify the use of a binding name in > > a reference target - proposal (c) > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Attached is the updated proposal for ASSEMBLY-137. I believe all > > comments from the last telecon are addressed, and in addition I found > > several additional places (as I suspected) which also needed a minor > update. > > / > > (See attached file: sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03+issue137c.doc)/ > > > > [1] _http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-137_ > > > > Dave Booz > > STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture > > Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC > > "Distributed objects first, then world hunger" > > Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093 > > e-mail:[attachment > > "sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03+issue137c.doc" deleted by Mike > > Edwards/UK/IBM] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > / > > / > > > > /Unless stated otherwise above: > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > > 741598. > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire > PO6 3AU/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03+issue137d.doc
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread