Next in thread →
Next in month →
RE: [ws-rx] slightly new i021 proposal
Guys, +1 to you both. So I take it this makes yet another proposal for i021, essentially Paul’s proposal here without the changes fro line 101 and 108-111 that introduce the wsrmp:Optional. Is that right? Marc Goodner Technical Diplomat Microsoft Corporation Tel: (425) 703-1903 Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 10:24 AM To: Ashok Malhotra Cc: Paul Fremantle; wsrx Subject: RE: [ws-rx] slightly new i021 proposal +1 Christopher Ferris STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy email: blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440 phone: +1 508 377 9295 "Ashok Malhotra" <> wrote on 03/08/2006 12:54:21 PM: > Thanks, Chris. You agree with.... > > > If a server attaches <RM optional = 'true'> to an output message > > it says that the message may or may not be transmitted reliably. > > The client may or may not be prepared to accept the message reliably. > > but then I argued that this is not a problem. The server and > client, thru some process of policy > comparison, can figure out whether the msg shd be sent reliably or not. > > Do you agree with this? > All the best, Ashok > > > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:] > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:24 AM > To: Ashok Malhotra > Cc: Paul Fremantle; wsrx > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] slightly new i021 proposal > > Ashok, > > +1 > > and especially: > > > If a server attaches <RM optional = 'true'> to an output message > > it says that the message may or may not be transmitted reliably. > > The client may or may not be prepared to accept the message reliably. > > which I think confirms that what I was trying to convey with my > proposal is consistent with > your understanding of the semantics of wsp:Optional. > > Cheers, > > Christopher Ferris > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy > email: > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440 > phone: +1 508 377 9295 > > "Ashok Malhotra" <> wrote on 03/07/2006 10:11:22 PM: > > > Paul: > > Thank you for trying to ferret out the confusion. > > > > My understanding of wsp:optional is a bit different and I > > don't think we need to define our own optional semantics. > > > > If you attach wsp:optional = 'true' to an output message > > you are saying that that message may or may not be transmitted > > reliably. In WS-Policy terms this means that there will > > be a policy option created that will transmit that message reliably > > and an option created that will not transmit the message reliably. > > Both policy options are equally valid and which option is chosen > > depends on what the client and server agree on. > > > > If a server attaches <RM optional = 'true'> to an output message > > it says that the message may or may not be transmitted reliably. > > The client may or may not be prepared to accept the message reliably. > > There needs to be communication between the client and server to > > determine whether the message is transmitted reliably or not. > > This may take the form of policy intersection or negotiation. > > But at the end of it the server and the client will agree on whether > > the message shd be transmitted reliably or not. > > > > > > All the best, Ashok > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:36 AM > > > To: wsrx > > > Subject: [ws-rx] slightly new i021 proposal > > > > > > Firstly, before anyone (or Umit) ticks me off, this is not MY > > > proposal. > > > It is in effect an amalgam of previous proposals. > > > > > > Secondly, the intent of this proposal is to effectively take > > > the previous proposal from Sanjay, amended by Chris, and make > > > one key change. The change is for us to define our own model > > > of what "optional" > > > means. The reason is that I think that if we have the > > > wsp:Optional marker on output messages it has an unintended > > > consequence that it implies the Service Client can and should > > > support RM. > > > > > > I see this policy being used in the following ways. > > > > > > 1) simply mark a whole endpoint optional. RM can be used on > > > either path or not without problems > > > 2) mark a whole endpoint non-optional. RM must be used on all > > > interactions. > > > 3) mark the endpoint optional and certain messages with > > > optional markers. This is a way expressing a preference that > > > these messages are delivered reliably. For example, mark all > > > input messages optionally reliable. > > > 4) mark the endpoint optional and certain messages > > > non-optional. This expresses that these specific messages > > > MUST be delivered reliably. One valid approach to this is to > > > deliver all messages reliably. > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > Based on WSRMP WD06/CD3 > > > > > > > > > > > > In section 2.2 change: > > > > > > > > > > > > Replace Line 101 with : > > > > > > > > > > > > <wsrmp:RMAssertion [optional="true"]? ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Replace lines 108-111 with > > > > > > /wsrmp:RMAssertion/@wsrmp:optional="true" > > > > > > The behavior indicated by the assertion is optional - that > > > WS-ReliableMessaging MAY or MAY NOT be used. The attachment > > > of an assertion marked optional does not imply that either > > > the service client or service provider implements either or > > > both an RMD or an RMS, and if no sequence is available, the > > > interaction SHOULD continue unreliably. > > > > > > > > > > > > Replace the entire content of section 2.3 (Assertion > > > Attachment) in the WS-RM Policy specification with the following: > > > > > > > > > > > > The RM policy assertion is allowed to have the following > > > Policy Subjects > > > [WS-PolicyAttachment]: > > > > > > > > > > > > Endpoint Policy Subject > > > > > > Message Policy Subject > > > > > > > > > > > > WS-PolicyAttachment defines a set of WSDL/1.1 [WSDL 1.1] > > > policy attachment points for each of the above Policy > > > Subjects. Since an RM policy assertion specifies a concrete > > > behavior, it MUST NOT be attached to the abstract WSDL policy > > > attachment points. > > > > > > > > > > > > The following is the list of WSDL/1.1 elements whose scope > > > contains the Policy Subjects allowed for an RM policy > > > assertion but which MUST NOT have RM policy assertions attached: > > > > > > > > > > > > wsdl:message > > > > > > wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input > > > > > > wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output > > > > > > wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault > > > > > > wsdl:portType > > > > > > > > > > > > The following is the list of WSDL/1.1 elements whose scope > > > contains the Policy Subjects allowed for an RM policy > > > assertion and which MAY have RM policy assertions attached: > > > > > > wsdl:port > > > > > > wsdl:binding > > > > > > wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input > > > > > > wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output > > > > > > wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault > > > > > > > > > > > > If an RM policy assertion is attached to any of: > > > > > > > > > > > > * wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input > > > > > > * wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output > > > > > > * wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault > > > > > > > > > > > > then an RM policy assertion, specifying optional=true MUST be > > > attached to the corresponding wsdl:binding or wsdl:port, > > > indicating that the endpoint supports WS-RM. Any messages, > > > regardless of whether they have an attached Message Policy > > > Subject RM policy assertion, MAY be sent to that endpoint > > > using WS-RM. Additionally, the receiving endpoint MUST NOT > > > reject any message belonging to a Sequence, simply because > > > there was no Message Policy Subject RM policy assertion > > > attached to that message. > > > > > > > > > > > > If the RM policy assertion appears in a policy expression > > > attached to a wsdl:binding as well as to the individual > > > wsdl:binding level message > > > definitions(wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input, > > > wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output, > > > wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault), any parameters or > > > extensibility elements in the former MUST be used and the > > > latter ignored. > > > > > > > > > > > > If the RM policy assertion appears in a policy expression > > > attached to a wsdl:port as well as to the other allowed > > > WSDL/1.1 elements, any parameters or extensibility elements > > > in the former MUST be used and the latter ignored. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Paul Fremantle > > > VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair > > > > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf > > > > > > > > > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com > > > > > > > > > > >
Next in thread →
Next in month →