[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] proposed resolution for issue 129
1. I don't think we can define a default for soap:mustUnderstand with ws-context - at least, not usefully. 2. If the receiving implmentation doesn't recognise the ws-context namespace, then it won't know of any any ws-context-defined default for soap:mustUnderstand, so will use the soap-defined default. (and ignore the header) 3. If the receiving implementation does recognise the ws-context namespace then it "understands" and the mustUnderstand setting is irrelevant. 4. There is the possibility of an implementation recognising the ws-context namespace but not the context type. This could be affected by a ws-context-defined default for soap:mustUnderstand. Since a receiver as in 2 would ignore a context with no explicit soap:mustUnderstand, it is hard to see what point there would be in making this semi-understander throw a fault. 5. The original text (the target of this issue) was about ws-context mandating an explicit override of the default (i.e. soap:mustUnderstand was required to be present, and be ="true"). A referencing specification could legitimately mandate that (though the arguments about the wisdom of such a requirement apply). But ws-context should not, and leave it to the particular use to decide what setting to use, with the soap-defined default applying if the field is omitted. 6. My conclusion in 4 may be contrary to what I sent earlier about keeping the ws-context:mustUnderstand. It would only be useful to keep that if there is a crossover - soap and wsctx values different. It seems pointless to have soap=false, wsctx=true, as said in 4. If there is significant behaviour defined in the base ws-context, it is just possible to justify soap=true, wsctx=false - it would mean the base behaviour is required, but the extension behaviour is not. Since the base behaviour is under discussion on other issues, I think the resolution of this (the survival of wsctx:mustUnderstand) should be deferred. [and we need an issue on it, but that can wait till this one is settled] Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Little [mailto:Mark.Little@arjuna.com] > Sent: 27 June 2004 01:52 > To: Furniss, Peter; Mark Little; ws-caf > Subject: RE: [ws-caf] proposed resolution for issue 129 > > > It does define a default, which is false, but there is no > requirement for us > to adopt that default. Hence the option to the TC. > > Mark. > > >===== Original Message From "Furniss, Peter" > ><Peter.Furniss@choreology.com> > ===== > >This is the soap:mustUnderstand, yes (the context > mustUnderstand is the > >subject of 134, and may or may not survive). > > > >Doesn't soap define a default (false, i think). Do we need > to define a > >further one ? > > > >Peter > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] > >Sent: 24 June 2004 12:25 > >To: ws-caf > >Subject: [ws-caf] proposed resolution for issue 129 > > > > > >http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=129 > > > >I'd like to propose that we change the text to agree with > this, i.e., > >that mustUnderstand should be defined by referencing specifications. > >The only caveat would be: should there be a default and if so, what > >value to use? I think for interoperability purposes there > should be a > >default and it should be false. > > > >Mark. > > > >---- > >Mark Little, > >Chief Architect, Transactions, > >Arjuna Technologies Ltd. > > > >www.arjuna.com > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]