I have to disagree again with your point of view, Mike. In a
recursive decomposition model, you don't want to be counting one one
of the levels (the Assembler) to be special.
On 2/1/2011 7:59 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
Folks,
I tend to sympathise with Anish's
view,
with the following motivation:
It is the Assembler of a
composite who
makes decisions about the "local channels".
In my opinion, if the Assembler
has
a local channel with no binding, then this is a statement of
"privacy"
- only local components can
produce/consume
events relating to that channel. However, it may be that
the Assembler decides to apply a
specific
binding to the Channel, in which case the configuration of that
binding may be specifically
designed
to allow events to flow to/from other components that might be
using
that binding "directly" (eg
JMS queue).
However, this represents an
explicit
decision of the Assembler,
akin to the Assembler choosing to
configure
the reference of a component with a binding with a fully
resolved target service address.
It
makes the composite less reusable, it makes assumptions about
the
"outside world", but it may
well serve the purposes of the Assembler very well.
Yours, Mike
Dr
Mike Edwards
Mail Point
146, Hursley
Park
STSM
Winchester,
Hants SO21
2JN
SCA
& Services
Standards
United
Kingdom
Co-Chair
OASIS SCA
Assembly TC
IBM
Software Group
Phone:
+44-1962
818014
Mobile:
+44-7802-467431
(274097)
e-mail:
From:
Anish Karmarkar
<>
To:
OASIS Assembly
<>
Date:
01/02/2011 15:08
Subject:
[sca-assembly] Private
or local channels
During last week's call Peter and I had a
little bit
of back on forth in
the chat regarding private/local channels. I would like to
start a
discussion on it on the ML before I file an issue (or not,
depending on
the outcome of the discussion).
Peter has pointed out that line 2815 of our spec says:
"Channels within a composite used as an implementation are
private
to
the components within that composite. These private channels
can only be
the targets for producers existing within the same composite
as the
channel. Private channels can only be sources for consumers
existing
withing the same composite as the channel. An SCA runtime MAY
support
the use of private channels "
Peter's interpretation of this is that composite channels are
not
visible to components outside the composite *and* to anyone
outside of
the SCA-world. I have a different interpretation of this. I
don't think
our spec should talk about what things outside of SCA do or
don't do. We
should allow for enough freedom wrt the technology use to
implement the
channels. It could be an in-memory channel that is true
invisible to
anyone outside the process or a JMS topic, which would have
visibility
outside of SCA. We currently allow bindings on a composite
channel; that
to me indicates that we intended to allow such variability. If
folks
agree with my interpretation, I think we should change the
wordings to
replace 'private' with 'local', so as not the give an
incorrect impression.
Comments?
-Anish
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
