Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 2: proposal (v7) - an update

Two questions:

1) why does the text refer specifically to the was:From header block (as opposed to [source endpoint]) in 1) 1), but then refers to [reply endpoint] (as opposed to the was:ReplyTo header block) in 1) 2) ?

2) There is an intent in the policy spec called noListener that can be used on a reference to indicate:

2581   ...   This intent can only be used within the @requires attribute of a reference. The

2582 noListener intent MUST only be declared on a @requires attribute of a reference. [POL100004] It

2583 states that the client is not able to handle new inbound connections. It requires that the

2584 binding and callback binding be configured so that any response (or callback) comes either

2585 through a back channel of the connection from the client to the server or by having the

2586 client poll the server for messages. When noListener is present, an SCA Runtime MUST not

2587 establish any connection from a service to a client. [POL100005] An example policy assertion that

2588 would guarantee this is a WS-Policy assertion that applies to the <binding.ws> binding,

2589 which requires the use of WS-Addressing with anonymous responses (e.g.

2590 <wsaw:Anonymous>required</wsaw:Anonymous>” – see

2591 http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-addr-wsdl/#anonelement).

Anish's proposal is in conflict with this feature as it disallows a back channel callback. Anish, how would you like to resolve this conflict?  It's too bad that we don't have a way in the policy spec to indicate that a bindingType doesn't support a particular intent. :-)

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:

Mike Edwards ---02/11/2009 05:27:12 AM---Anish, Thanks for doing this.

From:

Mike Edwards <>

To:

OASIS Bindings <>

Date:

02/11/2009 05:27 AM

Subject:

Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 2: proposal (v7) - an update

Anish, 

Thanks for doing this. 

I've created an update based on your version which gives this way of doing callbacks a name, 

expresses the optionality and makes some tweaks to the wording of the normative statements 

that I hope makes things clearer.  There are some inline comments plus one question.... 

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: Anish Karmarkar <> 

To: OASIS Bindings <> 

Date: 11/02/2009 08:05 

Subject: [sca-bindings] Issue 2: proposal (v7)

At the last virtual f2f [1] we set the direction for resolution of this 

issue (lot of contentious motions/discussions).

I have applied the changes to version v6 of the proposal (per our 

resolutions) and created v7 (attached). The proposal has all the RFC 

keywords in it. I would like to propose that we make this the resolution 

for this issue, asking the editors to include it binding.ws in a new 

section (with appropriate edits for examples/scenarios). Once this is 

done the only outstanding item coming out of this issue would be to 

include in the conformance section that this new protocol is optional 

(there is a separate issue for the conformance section) -- make this an 

AI for the editors or part of the conformance issue.

-Anish

--

[1] 

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-bindings/download.php/30294/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202008-12-01.doc

[attachment "SCA-bindings-issue2-proposal-v7.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 

[attachment "SCA-bindings-issue2-proposal-v7_mje.doc" deleted by David Booz/Poughkeepsie/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