W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > October 2006

Re: ISSUE (3639) Which policy alternative was selected?

From: Sanka Samaranyake <sanka@wso2.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:54:49 +0000
Message-ID: <452BFA89.70506@wso2.com>
To: Fabian Ritzmann <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>
CC: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Fabian Ritzmann wrote:
>
> Ashok Malhotra wrote:
>> My original motivation in raising this issue was to provide a
>> rationale for why we
>> wanted a pointer from the message to the policy (alternative) that
>> was applied to it.  (There are
>> other reasons why such a pointer may be useful, for example if the
>> policy changes
>> during the course of a long-running transaction, or to indicate
>> policies or assertions which do not affect the wire format of
>> messages - bug 3789.)
>>
>> At the f2f in Bellevue the WG said:
>> 1. You can add such a pointer to a msg using the SOAP extensibility
>> mechanism but
>> 2. The WG did not want to standardize such a header as it raised
>> all manner of questions such "shd this
>> be the first header."
>>
>> Subsequently, Dan Roth told the WG
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Oct/0043.html
>> that Microsoft products used the following solutions:
>> 1. In case multiple alternatives apply, create an endpoint that
>> supports exactly one policy alternative.
>> 2. Use an out-of-band mechanism to convey which alternative was
>> selected.  In effect, this uses an out-of-band
>> mechanism instead of the pointer in the message that I wanted.
>>
>> So, at this point I am willing to agree to close the issue with no
>> action.
>> If others feel differently please propose the solution you would like.
>>  
>
> Regarding the suggested solutions:
>
> 1. Web services are meant to be interoperable. I don't think that
> any product-specific solution can satisfy that requirement.
>
> 2. Irrespectively of whether an in-band or out-of-band mechanism is
> chosen, it would be beneficial to have standardized solutions.
>
> Having said that, I believe that designing a solution would take
> more time and effort than would be good for our schedule. I'd like
> to see this issue deferred to V.next.
>
> Fabian
>

I believe as policies are get used in more and more real life
scenarios, it is likely that we might end up with policy alternatives
that are not distinguish able just looking at the message itself. And
I feel that, irrespectively of whether it is in-band or out-of-band,
there should be way to indicate to the server, which alternative the
client has picked. I am ok if with differing this  to the next version
as far as  it  is remains noted.

Sanka

- --
Sanka Samaranayake
WSO2 Inc.
T:+94-77-3506382 F:+94-11-2424304

http://sankas.blogspot.com/
http://www.wso2.net/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFK/qJ/Hd0ETKdgNIRAmtvAJ9A//SEe+02heUIpqj6ba35k0ypzgCdE6M5
GiWeAJJim2cGpqHoqPe3U7A=
=VrOI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 20:36:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:42 GMT