Mike Edwards wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Comment inline
>
> 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: Simon Nash <>
> To:
> Date: 03/04/2009 15:05
> Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 2 proposal v12
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> David Booz wrote:
> > Thanks Anish,
> >
> > I agree that the URI (and the assertion NS) are independent, and in no
> > way did I intend to mean that either of them be kept in sync with future
> > assembly namespace URI changes. It clear that they have independent
> > lifecycles from Assembly NS and from each other. It was purely a
> > suggestion and I'm fine either way. For someone with an organized mind
> > like myself, it looks odd to start out with different URIs, but maybe
> > that's just me.
> >
> > 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 Anish Karmarkar ---04/02/2009 07:11:01
> > PM---Thanks Dave. I will send a new version (v13) shortly afteAnish
> > Karmarkar ---04/02/2009 07:11:01 PM---Thanks Dave. I will send a new
> > version (v13) shortly after incorporating your and
> >
> >
> > From:
> > Anish Karmarkar <>
> >
> > To:
> >
> >
> > Date:
> > 04/02/2009 07:11 PM
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 2 proposal v12
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks Dave.
> > I will send a new version (v13) shortly after incorporating your and
> > SimonN's changes.
> >
> > Responses to your word comments:
> >
> > 1) DAB: These sentences just don’t read correctly, can we start them
> > with ‘If’ ?
> >
> > I have made that (added 'if') change.
> > I think the whole paragraph can be made better (we can use if-then-else
> > and remove a 'MUST'), but at this stage I would rather not make any
> changes.
> >
> > 2) DAB: Should we update this to match the current namespace?
> >
> > This comment is for the wsa:RelatesTo/@RelationshipType attribute value
> > URI. This URI value has nothing to do with our NS URI, in principle. We
> > *could* make it the same as our NS URI. It would be easier to remember
> > just one. But I don't think we should change it in the future if the NS
> > URI changes but the semantics of the protocol don't (or vice versa).
> > This may lead to some confusion (if people expect them to be in sync),
> > if the NS URI changes in the future. Furthermore, I would rather see a
> > URI that is completely under the control of this TC rather than the
> > assembly TC. Overall I tend to lean towards saying that we should keep
> > this URI independent of our NS.
> >
> > 3) DAB: How can ‘right after’ ever work?
> >
> > You're correct, this is a problem. It is important for the listener case
> > that the listener be ready before or at the same time the forward
> > request is made. In the listener case, a connection failure may be
> > treated by the service as fatal. For the polling case 'right after' is
> > ok. I have changed the words for the listener case to say: 'before or at
> > the same time'.
> >
> "At the same time" seems to be logically (or logistically) impossible.
> With most computers, one action occurs either before or after
> another action. If actions truly do occur at the same time, it
> would be by amazing coincidence rather than deliberate intention.
>
> Simon
> *<mje>*
> *I'm struggling to see why we are making such a meal of this. I think I
> said it clearly on*
> *the last call that the requirement is:*
>
> *The callback endpoint must be in existence no later than the point where*
> *the client application code has invoked a forward operation on the
> reference and before*
> *the binding code transmits this invocation on the wire to the service.*
>
+1 for this wording.
Simon
> *The distinction between the application code and the binding
> implementation puts*
> *the responsibility cleanly onto the binding implementation code.*
> *</mje>*
>
> > 4) DAB: We should move to the 200903 schema level that assembly is on.
> >
> > This refers to the NS for the policy assertion.
> > In most, though not all, I expect this assertion to be used independent
> > of the composite file (in WSDLs/external attachments). I don't have a
> > strong opinion on this, but a mild preference to keep it independent of
> > the main assembly NS. I see the use of this assertion on the edges of
> > the domain and for interoperability across vendors/clients. Having the
> > ability to evolve this without the need to rev assembly NS (or vice
> > versa) would be good.
> >
> > -Anish
> > --
> >
> > David Booz wrote:
> > > Comments in this document. Turn off all reviewers but me to see
> all the
> > > changes, some are editorial where I changed the text directly
> instead of
> > > making Word comments.
> > >
> > > /(See attached file: SCA-bindings-issue2-proposal-v12_dab.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:
> > >
> > > Inactive hide details for Anish Karmarkar ---04/02/2009 02:01:10
> > > AM---Attached. I believe I included all the changes agreed to Anish
> > > Karmarkar ---04/02/2009 02:01:10 AM---Attached. I believe I
> included all
> > > the changes agreed to from last week.
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > Anish Karmarkar <>
> > >
> > > To:
> > > OASIS Bindings <>
> > >
> > > Date:
> > > 04/02/2009 02:01 AM
> > >
> > > Subject:
> > > [sca-bindings] Issue 2 proposal v12
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Attached.
> > > I believe I included all the changes agreed to from last week.
> > >
> > > The only quibble that I have with the wordings is that it talks about
> > > 'binding on the reference-side'. Since this is expected to be used at
> > > the edges of the domain, it is preferable to not talk about
> 'references'
> > > but instead say something like 'binding on the client-side' or 'the
> > > invoker's binding'.
> > >
> > > -Anish
> > > --
> > > [attachment "SCA-bindings-issue2-proposal-v12.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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
