Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 87: suggested response to the follow-up comment

+1 to Mike's suggestions, happy with
the rest of the text

Simon Holdsworth

Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB wrote on 25/03/2010 11:25:52:

> [image removed] 

> 

> Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 87: suggested response to the follow-up comment

> 

> Mike Edwards 

> 

> to:

> 

> OASIS Bindings

> 

> 25/03/2010 11:38

> 

> 

> Folks, 

> 

> Some comments inline as <mje>...</mje> 

> 

> In general, I am happy with the response... 

> 

> 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: 

> 

> 24/03/2010 18:47 

> 

> Subject: 

> 

> [sca-bindings] Issue 87: suggested response to the follow-up comment

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Here is my suggested response. Comments are welcome.

> 

> -Anish

> --

> 

> 

> 

> On 10/7/2009 9:12 AM, Michael Champion wrote:

> > Thank you for considering Microsoft's suggestion for improving
the SCA

> > Web Services Binding spec's interoperability

> > (http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-87).

> >

> 

> The TC greatly appreciate Microsoft's comments and the ongoing dialog.

> It would be even better, from an interoperability and adoption 

> perspective, if Microsoft were to participate in the SCA bindings
TC and 

> participate/contribute to the TC's work.

> 

> > We suggested that Web Services callbacks in the SCA Web Services
Binging

> > spec should interoperate with comparable frameworks such as JAX-WS
and

> > WCF, and not be limited to various implementations of SCA. This
would

> > promote the original goals of the Web Services standards to achieve

> > wire-level interoperability among diverse run-times and platforms.

> >

> 

> There is perhaps a misunderstanding about the SCA Web Services Callback

> Protocol. There is *nothing* in the protocol that impedes wire-level

> interoperability with frameworks such as JAX-WS and WCF. The protocol

> (and the associated WSDL extension, WS-Policy assertion) uses the
well 

> know and well adopted WS-* architecture of composible specifications.
It 

> uses SOAP/WSDL/WS-Policy extensibility/architecture to implement the

> callback functionality. Any WS-* stack that allows one to handle 

> extensibility/composable specification should be able to handle the

> protocol. 

> 

> <mje>We can perhaps make a point that the testcase suite is
designed to use 

> JAXWS components to check the conformance of an SCA runtime to the
binding.ws

> specification 

> </mje>

> 

> Perhaps you mean "out-of-the-box" interoperability from
JAX-WS/WCF. If 

> so, then that is the decision the implementors/creators of JAX-WS/WCF

> have to make. It is not within the scope of this TC. Since Microsoft

> owns WCF, it would be up to Microsoft to provide such an 

> "out-of-the-box" interoperability, and this TC would urge
Microsoft to 

> do so.

> 

> **********

> [This part would be included only if we decide to resolve issue 124

> along the direction that has been discussed recently. If not, this
para 

> will be removed.]

> 

> To that end, the TC has created separate conformance targets/sections

> that allows for entities that want to conform to the protocol, but
not 

> necessarily implement an SCA runtime. See resolution of issue 124
[.1]

> 

> [.1] http://osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-124

> 

> **********

> 

> > The SCA Binding TC responded by saying that the SCA Web Services
binding

> > protocol "defines an *SCA* Web service callback protocol
standard” and

> > that it "is not meant to satisfy general purpose callback
requirements

> > with a broadest scope possible". In other works, the TC
believes that

> > the SCA Web Services callbacks will NOT be interoperable with
non-SCA

> > implementations

> >

> 

> That is incorrect. Not defining a protocol that satisfies *every*

> possible callback definition and interoperability are orthogonal.

> 

> As mentioned above, SCA Web Services Callback Protocol is interoperable

> with non-SCA runtimes as long as they implement the protocol as specified.

> 

> What we meant to say was that: 

> <mje> 

> I would prefer to use the phrase: "To clarify what we said previously..."

> - this does not carry the implication that we did not say want we

> meant before... 

> </mje>

> The TC is not interested in boiling the ocean to satisfy every callback

> scenario and every possible callback definition. Microsoft's comment
was 

> interpreted by the TC as suggesting that all the callback-related

> discussion need to be re-discussed in a separate TC and that we need
to 

> start from scratch. We believe that the SCA callback definition 

> satisfies the needs of SCA. Furthermore the SCA callback definition
is 

> general enough to satisfy other needs as well. Doing so is well within

> the scope of this TC and we believe it is interoperable on the wire.

> 

> This is very similar to what the WS-RX TC [.1] did when it created
a 

> polling specification [.2]. Polling is necessary to implement reliable

> messaging when one of the interacting entities is behind a firewall.

> They created a specification that is useful for WS-ReliableMessaging
as 

> well as other WS-* implementation that have a need for polling and

> choose to use WS-MakeConnection for that purpose.

> 

> [.1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ws-rx

> [.2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsmc/200702/wsmc-1.1-spec-os.html

> 

> > The TC's response goes on to say that "This TC does believe
that it

> > should define an interoperable Web services protocol that implements
SCA

> > callback and it has done that. It does not believe that it is
in the

> > scope or interest of this TC to define a callback protocol for
all

> > architectures and programming models."

> 

> What was meant here (and should have been said) was: 

> <mje> 

> Again: "To clarify our previous response:" 

> </mje>

> We believe that we have defined an interoperable callback protocol.
It 

> works for SCA and we believe it works for other architectures and

> programming models (SCA is designed ground-up for a multiple programming

> model environments).

> 

> If Microsoft believes that the SCA callback definition does not fit

> their architecture/programming model, then we respectfully request
(and 

> per our understanding certain members of the TC have in the past)

> Microsoft to participate in the TC. No one, including Microsoft, has

> brought forward any *specific* architectural or interoperability issues

> with the callback protocol definition.

> 

> > We respectfully find this

> > statement contradictory, unless the TC defines the term

> > "interoperability" in its narrowest form: SCA implementations
will only

> > be interoperable amongst themselves, and not with other frameworks
and

> > runtimes. We would find this unfortunate, as OASIS is committed
to broad

> > interoperability, especially when it comes to use of Web Service
wire

> > protocols. It would be better to standardize a Web Services callback
in

> > a separate spec, with the participation of all vendors who build

> > platforms and products that support Web Services wire protocols.

> >

> 

> Again, we would welcome Microsoft's participating in this TC.

> 

> **********

> [note this paragraph depends on the resolution of issue 124]

> 

> We would also note that the spec now contains conformance requirements

> for non-SCA runtimes that would like to implement the protocol and

> interoperable on the wire.

> **********

> 

> > It is clear from [1] that the TC is aware that interoperability
with

> > non-SCA runtimes is an issue. The TC discussed the idea of moving
the

> > callback portion of the protocol into its own document in order
to

> > address "the use case of non-SCA clients does walk into
the more general

> > territory alluded to by MS." We highly recommend that the
Binding and

> > Assembly TCs work together to design a Web Services Binding spec
that is

> > interoperable with non-SCA technologies. Without interoperability,

> > software developers and users will find it difficult to use SCA
in the

> > heterogeneous, multi-vendor environments that all our customers
live in.

> >

> 

> **********

> [note this paragraph depends on the resolution of issue 124]

> 

> Indeed, and the spec has been changed to allow non-SCA runtimes to

> conform to the protocol and interoperate on the wire. 

> <mje> 

> The specification has been extended to provide specific conformance
statements

> that provide a definition of what any runtime, including non-SCA 

> runtimes, would need 

> to do to conform to the protocol and to interoperate on the wire 

> </mje>

> **********

> 

> > [1]

> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34064/SCA%

> 20Bindings%20minutes%202009-09-03.doc

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Michael Champion

> >

> > *From:* Simon Holdsworth [mailto:]

> > *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:04 AM

> > *To:* 

> > *Subject:* [sca-bindings-comment] Response to: "Microsoft
technical

> > comment: Develop interoperable approach notspecific to SCA for
callbacks"

> >

> >

> > This is a formal response of the OASIS SCA Bindings technical
committee

> > to the "Microsoft technical comment: Develop interoperable
approach not

> > specific to SCA for callbacks" which was sent to the SCA
Bindings public

> > comments list.

> >

> > This is the agreed response of the technical committee as a whole
and

> > was approved unanimously at the meeting of the TC which took
place on

> > September 3rd 2009.

> >

> > ------------------------

> >

> > Thanks for taking the time to review the specification, sending
your

> > public review comment [1], and for sharing you thoughts. They
are much

> > appreciated.

> >

> > The public review comment at [1] suggests that: "... the
work of

> > defining a Web Service callback standard is best done by the
appropriate

> > Web Services working groups in OASIS in the broadest scope possible.

> > This will foster a general interoperable mechanism for all architectures

> > and programming models that use standard Web Services protocols
on the

> > wire."

> >

> > There is a misunderstanding on the commenter's part that the
SCA Web

> > Services Binding defines a (generally applicable) "Web Service
callback

> > standard." The binding defines an *SCA* Web service callback
protocol

> > standard that provides the wire-level details for implementing
an SCA

> > callback defined by the SCA Assembly specification [2]. [2] defines
a

> > callback mechanism that satisfies the needs of the SCA Assembly
model

> > and is not meant to satisfy general purpose callback requirements
with a

> > broadest scope possible. Furthermore, there does not exist any
other

> > OASIS Web Services Working Group or a Technical Committee that

> > specializes in Web Services that has callbacks in its charter
scope.

> > This TC *does* specialize in Web services and is chartered to
produce a

> > Web services binding for SCA.

> >

> > This TC does believe that it should define an interoperable Web
services

> > protocol that implements SCA callback and it has done that. It
does not

> > believe that it is in the scope or interest of this TC to define
a

> > callback protocol for all architectures and programming models.

> >

> > WRT your comment about SCA Assembly specification Section 7.4,
we

> > respectfully request you to share that feedback with the SCA
Assembly TC

> > [3], as the SCA Assembly specification is not owned by and is
not in

> > scope for this TC.

> >

> > [1]

> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings-comment/200908/

> msg00000.html

> >

> > [2]

> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-assembly/sca-assembly-1.1-

> spec-cd03.pdf

> >

> > [3] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=sca-assembly

> >

> > --------------------------

> >

> > Follow-up comments are welcome.

> >

> > 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 -  <mailto:>

> >

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> > /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

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 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