Next in thread →
Next in month →
Re: [sca-bindings] Notions around issue 54 - close to a proposal
+1 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 ---02/11/2009 09:48:09 AM---David Booz wrote: > +1 to Mike. From: Simon Nash <> To: David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS Cc: Date: 02/11/2009 09:48 AM Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Notions around issue 54 - close to a proposal David Booz wrote: > +1 to Mike. > > And one further comment (on the reference side), how do other people > feel about an optimization allowing wsdlElement to point to a WSDL > service that has only one port in it? > I would take this a step further to allow a reference to point to a WSDL service with more than one port in it. In this case, the SCA runtime would select a port in an implementation-defined manner. It is my understanding that this is what the current spec implies. Simon > 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 Mike Edwards ---02/11/2009 05:50:09 AM---Eric, > Comments inline as <mje></mje>Mike Edwards ---02/11/2009 05:50:09 > AM---Eric, Comments inline as <mje></mje> > > > From: > Mike Edwards <> > > To: > OASIS Bindings <> > > Date: > 02/11/2009 05:50 AM > > Subject: > Re: [sca-bindings] Notions around issue 54 - close to a proposal > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Eric, > > Comments inline as *<mje></mje>* > > 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: Eric Johnson <> > To: OASIS Bindings <> > Date: 11/02/2009 02:57 > Subject: [sca-bindings] Notions around issue 54 - close to a proposal > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Staring at issue 54 for several hours, I came up with the following: > > The URI(s) for a binding.ws element contained in an service element > SHOULD be determined by the first of these rules that is satisfied: > 1. If the @wsdlElement attribute is present > 1. and refers to a WSDL port element, use the address of the port > 2. and refers to a WSDL service element, use the address for each > port element that the service contains. > 2. If the endpointReference element is present, and has a wsa:Address > element with an absolute URI, use the wsa:Address element value > 3. If there is no endpointReference element > 1) if the @uri attribute is present on the binding.ws element, it > must be relative (Assembly section 9), and the actual URI should contain > the structural URI of the service plus the value of the @uri attribute. > 2) if the @uri attribute is absent, the actual binding URI should > contain the structural URI of the binding. > 4. If there is an endpointReference element with a relative wsa:Address > element, compute the address as per #3, and combine the relative address > from wsa:Address with the result. * > <mje>Should not #4 be a subclause of #2? Clearly #3 is skipped if there > is an* * > endpointReference element</mje>* > > The URI for a binding.ws.element contained in a reference element SHOULD > be determined by the first of these rules that is satisfied: * > <mje>Why SHOULD rather than MUST here?</mje>* > > 1. If the @wsdlElement attribute is present > 1. and refers to a WSDL port element, use the address of the port > 2. If the endpointReference element is present, and has a wsa:Address > element with an absolute URI, use the wsa:Address element value > 3. and the @uri is present on the binding.ws element, and it is > absolute, use the value of the @uri attribute > 4. and the @uri is present on the binding.ws element, and it is > relative, use the address determined by the targeted service > * > <mje> I don't understand #4 here. What is the "targeted service" in this > case? The* * > @uri value is supposed to identify the "targeted service" - how can the > address be* * > determined from the targeted service without already knowing what the > targeted* * > service is - and in this case the @uri is supposed to contain this > information.* * > </mje>* > > If this makes sense to people, I can finish up by adding in the > appropriate text about how the endpointReference reference parameters > should be used. > > -Eric. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
Next in thread →
Next in month →