Mark Little wrote:
> When going over what the Context model assumed to ALS-to-activity
> bindings, the following questions arose:
>
> Do multiple ALSs register for a single protocol? How does the context
> service know how many ALSs must be registered for a particular protocol?
>
> I hope we've been clear in the UML/text that the intention was always
> that multiple ALSs could register with a context service (aka activity
> service). However, what wasn't clear was the role of the 'type' field
> in the context. This was intended to map to an implied set of ALSs and
> recipients of the type could infer from it what was in the context.
> Defining *what* the type is is within the specification IMO, but
> saying *how* it maps to specific combinations of ALSs should be
> outside the scope of the spec. What I mean is that we shouldn't say
> that urn:foo:bar:1234 is a transactional protocol-type with only a
> single transaction ALS registered with an activity, whereas
> urn:foo:bar:5678 is a secure+transactional protocol-type. Other
> specifications should do that. (It's the same as defining the formatID
> in the OTS context).
>
> So, as far as the myself, Greg and Eric are concerned, this is more an
> issue of text clarification. Comments?
Agreed.
Ricardo
--
Ricardo Jimenez-Peris
Associate Professor
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid
http://lsd.ls.fi.upm.es/%7Erjimenez/
