- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:11:38 -0700
- To: "Yendluri, Prasad" <Prasad.Yendluri@softwareag.com>, <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BEBB9CBE66B372469E93FFDE3EDC493EDB36DB@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
But is this a real use case for ordering of acquisitions? It seems to me they are order independent, or at least until I'm ordered in a different sequence :-) I somehow don't think these are 2 soap headers in the same message either :-) Cheers, Dave ________________________________ From: Yendluri, Prasad [mailto:Prasad.Yendluri@softwareag.com] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 8:06 AM To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; David Orchard Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: RE: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD Could policy for sequential acquisitions (in order) be an example of this? :) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/bs_nm/beasystems_oracle_dc_3 Regards, Prasad -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ashok malhotra Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:33 PM To: David Orchard Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: Re: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD David: Please answer the question. Is it your position that there are no Policies where the order in which the assertions within a Policy Alternative are applied is important? Ashok David Orchard wrote: >I think the onus is on you to prove something, rather than me to prove >nothing, especially if you want the WG to do something. > >I know you are arguing that some policies need ordering. I'm arguing >you need to show some policies that need ordering. > >Cheers, >Dave > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] >>Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:28 AM >>To: David Orchard >>Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org >>Subject: Re: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD >> >>I'll make it still shorter: >> >>I'm arguing that SOME policies need ordering. The Policy >>Framework says so and the fact the there are ordering >>assertions in WS SecurityPolicy confirms this. >> >>Are you arguing that NO policies need ordering? >> >>Ashok >> >>David Orchard wrote: >> >> >> >>>I'll make my note even shorter. >>> >>>What situations are those? >>> >>>For the 2nd time, you have failed to specify a single situation that >>>requires a change to WS-Policy. You've described a problem that >>>already has a solution and quotes from other people but >>> >>> >>those are not >> >> >>>answers to my question. >>> >>>In the absence of any real-world problem, the obvious thing for >>>WS-Policy WG to do is to close with no action. >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] >>>>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:59 PM >>>>To: David Orchard >>>>Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org >>>>Subject: Re: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy >>>> >>>> >>Primer LCWD >> >> >>>>Hi Dave: >>>>I used the fact that WS-SecurityPolicy discusses order to >>>> >>>> >>motivate the >> >> >>>>need for order in at least some policies. >>>>I also quoted from the note from Tony Rogers. >>>> >>>> >>Subsequently, there was >> >> >>>>a note from Bob Natale who agrees that order is important >>>> >>>> >>but does not >> >> >>>>like the solution I suggested. >>>> >>>>What needs to be made clear is that order is not important in all >>>>policies, but there are situations where it is important >>>> >>>> >>and for these >> >> >>>>situations we need a solution. >>>> >>>>Ashok >>>> >>>>David Orchard wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org >>>>>>[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>ashok malhotra >> >> >>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:56 AM >>>>>>To: public-ws-policy@w3.org >>>>>>Subject: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>><snip/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In many cases the >>>>>>order in which assertions are processed may not matter, but >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>where it >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>does matter do we need to specify a special assertion for >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>every pair >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>of assertions that need to be ordered? Clearly, this is not >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>feasible >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>as the Policy processing engine will need to be undated >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>whenever a new >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>ordering assertion is added. So, what we need is a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>general-purpose >> >> >>>>>>ordering assertion. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>Your note jumps from assumption to conclusion to design with great >>>>>speed, indeed from assumption to conclusion within 3 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>sentences. Those >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>3 fleety sentences do not answer my previous emails central >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>question of >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"when does order matter?". In case my question was >>>>> >>>>> >>missed, perhaps >> >> >>>>>because of burdensom length of my previous message, I'll ask >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>again more >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>succinctly: >>>>> >>>>>When does order matter? >>>>> >>>>>Until the use case is agreed by the WG, design discussions >>>>> >>>>> >>are very >> >> >>>>>premature IMHO. >>>>> >>>>>Cheers, >>>>>Dave >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>-- >>>>All the best, Ashok >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>-- >>All the best, Ashok >> >> >> -- All the best, Ashok
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 15:12:36 UTC