Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 124: SCA WSCB protocol conformance

From
Simon Holdsworth <>
Date
2010-03-08T11:13:53+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 124: SCA WSCB protocol conformance
Anish,

Would you be able to turn your suggestion
into a more formal proposed resolution?  This is now the only open
issue against the WS binding spec so we need a proposal if we want this
resolved prior to the next CD/PR

Thanks, Simon

Simon Holdsworth

STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair,
AT&T and Boeing Lab Advocate

MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK

Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898

Internet - 

Anish Karmarkar <>
wrote on 04/03/2010 17:05:25:

> [image removed] 

> 

> Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 124: SCA WSCB protocol conformance

> 

> Anish Karmarkar 

> 

> to:

> 

> sca-bindings

> 

> 04/03/2010 17:11

> 

> On 3/4/2010 5:24 AM, Simon Holdsworth wrote:

> >

> > Anish,

> >

> > fwiw my preference is to go ahead and open this issue so we can
discuss

> > the potential resolution.

> >

> > In terms of what we say about non-SCA runtimes in your proposed

> > solution, it looks like we are defining two new conformance targets,
and

> > then saying that the SCA runtime must conform to the statements
for each

> > of these, there's nothing what you say below about stating conformance

> > for non-SCA runtimes.

> 

> That's what section 6.x and 6.y would do. A WSCB service/client does
not 

> necessarily have to be an SCA runtime.

> 

> > I assume that a non-SCA runtime could then just

> > refer to this section in the spec and state that they provide
a

> > conformant WSCB Client and WSCB Service as defined in the WS
binding

> > spec section 6.X.

> 

> Yes, that's the idea. In any case, that is what I had in mind. There

> might be better ways of dealing with this, but we are getting into

> solution space.

> 

> -Anish

> --

> 

> > I'd be OK with that, as opposed to the WS binding spec

> > specifically talking about non-SCA runtimes.

> >

> > Regards, Simon

> >

> > Simon Holdsworth

> > STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings
TC

> > Chair, AT&T and Boeing Lab Advocate

> > MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK

> > Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898

> > Internet - 

> >

> >

> > From:    Anish Karmarkar <>

> > To:    OASIS Bindings <>

> > Date:    04/03/2010 07:38

> > Subject:    [sca-bindings] Issue 124: SCA WSCB protocol
conformance

> >

> >

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

> >

> >

> >

> > Here are the reasons why I think we need to provide WSCB-specific

> > targets and conformance statements:

> >

> > 1) We have relied on WS-* as our route to interoperability when
it comes

> > to SCA. This is one of the key reasons why WS Binding is required
for

> > any SCA runtime.

> >

> > 2) SCA WSCB is a WS-* protocol: it is SOAP/WSDL/Policy based
providing a

> > functionality on top of those specs.

> >

> > 3) One of the primary reasons for non-binding.sca is to talk
to entities

> > outside a domain. Just within a domain the need for non-binding.sca
is

> > weak at best; after all binding.sca is magic and you can do anything
you

> > want.

> >

> > 4) If we want services and references that use bi-directional
interfaces

> > to be usable from outside the SCA domain, and I'm arguing that
we most

> > certainly do, then it is important that we say exactly what is
required

> > from the implementer of the SCA WSCB protocol. A conformance
criteria is

> > more important for protocols than for systems (like SCA) that
focus on

> > portability and not interoperability). Experience from other
protocol

> > standards suggests that achieving interop on the wire is not
easy and

> > therefore anything that we do to provide clarity wrt conformance
would

> > greatly enhance interop.

> >

> >

> > One question that was asked on email/previous call was: what
would my

> > proposal be for resolving this issue. I would suggest something
along

> > the lines of:

> >

> > a) add two new targets. Something like WSCB Service and WSCB
Client.

> >

> > b) refactor numbered stmts in section 5 to use these targets
where

> > appropriate. I don't think this would be too difficult. For example,

> > BWS50005 current says:

> > "When the service implementation invokes the callback interface,
it MUST

> > use the Callback EPR from a request message that invoked the
forward

> > interface."

> > this would have to be changed to:

> > "When the --> **WSCB Service** <--- invokes the callback
interface, it

> > MUST use the Callback EPR from a request message that invoked
the

> > forward interface."

> >

> > c) Add two new sections 6.x and 6.y for the two new targets (Section
6

> > is about conformance) and in those section say " ... to
conform the

> > target MUST comply with all statements in Appendix C related
to ..."

> > similar to what we have done for other targets.

> >

> > d) In section 6.2 SCA Runtime, change bullet 2 and 3 as follows:

> >

> > "2. The implementation MAY support the SCA Web Services
Callback

> > Protocol. If it does, it MUST be a compliant WSCB Service and
a

> > compliant WSCB Client.

> > 3. The implementation MAY support the SCA Web Services Callback

> > Protocol in conjunction with WS-MakeConnection. If it does, it
MUST be a

> > complient WSCB Service and compliant WSCB Client and it MUST
comply with

> > the requirements of WS-MakeConnection."

> >

> >

> > -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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> >

> > /

> > /

> >

> > /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