On 2/10/2010 6:02 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
> All right, now that it is logged, I can be first to comment....
>
> This seems obvious to me, and potentially easy to over specify. The
> introductory paragraph to section 4 already spells out possibilities.
> Do the possibilities need to be specified as part of the normative
> statement?
Not necessary to inline it, we could just point to it. The problem I
have with the text in section 4 is that it doesn't say that it is an
exhaustive list. We are talking about what the runtime MUST do in 40005.
The current wordings in section 4 leave enough wiggle room for vendors
to create extensions outside the lines that we draw for vendor
extensions and get away with it. For example, what if a vendor had a
proprietary side file/configuration file that contained default
transport details (which were different than what is in 4.2) and no
extension in the <binding.ws> element.
-Anish
--
>
> Is there really an issue here?
>
> -Eric.
>
>
> On 02/10/2010 05:56 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
>> Logged as: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-118
>>
>> -Eric.
>>
>> On 02/10/2010 04:33 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>>
>>> Title: BWS40005 is ambiguous
>>>
>>> Spec: WS Binding
>>>
>>> Description:
>>> BWS40005 says --
>>> "In the event that the transport details are not otherwise determined,
>>> an SCA runtime MUST enable the default transport binding rules."
>>>
>>> It is not clear as to under what conditions the transport details are
>>> not otherwise determined
>>>
>>> Proposal:
>>>
>>> List the conditions that lead to this.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Anish
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
