Sanjay,
My thought had been to use @requires("callback")
in an interface definition (say) to mark the
fact that a callback interface is required
to go along with the first interface. This might be useful
in Java, for example, where the forward
and callback interfaces are necessarily separate artifacts.
However, I don't feel strongly about
this use case.
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:
"Patil, Sanjay"
<>
22/02/2008 00:56
To
Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "OASIS
Bindings" <>
cc
Subject
RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE-22: The Bindings
specifications should provide exemplary Implementations for a) Callbacks
and b) Conversations
One question inline below ...
From: Mike Edwards [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 8:15 AM
To: OASIS Bindings
Subject: RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE-22: The Bindings specifications should
provide exemplary Implementations for a) Callbacks and b) Conversations
Peter,
Interesting question - and an interesting answer too.
1) For conversational, since this is an intent, a bindingType simply must
list the "conversational" intent in its
@alwaysProvides or @mayProvide
attribute - if @mayProvide, then there needs to
also be a PolicySet which contains a policy which provides the "conversational"
intent.
2) For callback, we have a problem. There is no intent "callback"
at the moment. Callbacks are defined by
various mechanisms, but none of them are intents.
So, there is no obvious mechanism by which a bindingType can indicate that
it supports callbacks.
Perhaps we should invent a new intent "callback" and then also
define that it is "automatically" set whenever
there is other metadata that indicates that there is a callback interface
- it can also be specified explictly using
the @requires attribute. If that is done, then a bindingType can indicate
its support as for conversational.
<Sanjay> Under what circumstances would it be useful to specify the
'callback' intent via the @requires attribute (and not depend upon the
interface to express that there exists a callback) </Sanjay>
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:
"Peshev, Peter"
<>
21/02/2008 16:02
To
"Eric Johnson" <>,
Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc
"OASIS Bindings" <>
Subject
RE: [sca-bindings] ISSUE-22: The Bindings
specifications should provide exemplary Implementations for a) Callbacks
and b) Conversations
Hi,
just a question about that issue, how a binding should declare the support
or lack of support of those features. Is it by intents "Callbackable"
, "Conversational" , "NotSupportedCallback" , etc.
?
Peter
From: Eric Johnson [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, 4. February 2008 21:45
To: Mike Edwards
Cc: OASIS Bindings
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] ISSUE-22: The Bindings specifications should
provide exemplary Implementations for a) Callbacks and b) Conversations
Logged as http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-22
-Eric.
Mike Edwards wrote:
Raiser: Mike Edwards
Target: Web Services
Binding specification, JMS Binding Specification, JCA Binding Specification
Description:
At present, it is not clear which, if any, of the Bindings specifications
enable the implementation of two important
features of SCA described in the Assembly specification - namely Callback
interfaces and Conversational
interfaces.
Each of the Bindings specifications should explicitly declare if it is
possible to support each of these features.
For each of the Bindings specifications that claim to support either or
both of these features, the specification
should provide a full description of at least one exemplary implementation
of the feature using the Binding
technology described in the specification. Multiple alternative implementations
are permitted and may be
added to the specification.
For example, it may be possible to implement Callbacks using WS-Addressing
capabilities with Web services.
If so, and example, showing the use of appropriate features of WS-Addressing
and other relevant WS-*
capabilities should be added to the specification. If an alternative
exists using (say) WS-Context, then an
example based on that technology can also be provided.
Proposal:
None at present.
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:
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. You may a link to this group and 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
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
