Fine with me as well.
-Anish
--
On 11/18/2009 4:59 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
>
> My +1 too.
>
> 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: David Booz <>
> To:
> Date: 18/11/2009 12:47
> Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Re: Issue BINDINGS-107
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> +1 If it turns out that standardizing such a mechanism does become
> something of great utility, we can easily add it in a future version
> without breaking anything. Plus we'd have some real use cases on which
> to base the design.
>
> 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 Simon Holdsworth ---11/18/2009 06:06:04
> AM---Folks, here's my opinion on BINDINGS-107, I'd appreciateSimon
> Holdsworth ---11/18/2009 06:06:04 AM---Folks, here's my opinion on
> BINDINGS-107, I'd appreciate your comments/opinions.
>
> From:
> Simon Holdsworth <>
>
> To:
>
>
> Date:
> 11/18/2009 06:06 AM
>
> Subject:
> [sca-bindings] Re: Issue BINDINGS-107
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Folks, here's my opinion on BINDINGS-107, I'd appreciate your
> comments/opinions.
>
> The main purpose of having JMS and JCA binding elements in the
> definitions file is to allow a single JMS/JCA application to be accessed
> from several SCA references or services without having to duplicate all
> the details of connection and operation mapping. That's primarily due to
> the fact that there's no standard service definition for JMS/JCA
> applications. Typically for service bindings, the information is going
> to be specific to each exposed service so I would expect such sharing to
> be mainly but not exclusively used for references.
>
> There's no functional reason why we require this mechanism. If we remove
> it from the spec it doesn't reduce the capability of the bindings, it
> just means that SCA runtimes would possibly need to provide their own
> way of managing sharing of such information outside of the standard
> definitions. Given that this is not a portability/interop requirement
> I'd say its not that high a priority to be standardised. If we feel that
> the additional complexity that this brings to the JMS and JCA bindings
> specs is not justified, then I don't feel particularly strongly about
> removing it.
>
> Regards, Simon
>
> Simon Holdsworth
> STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair
> MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK
> Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898
> Internet -
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
