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

RE: NEW ISSUE: New Attribute keyword to identify 'local' policies #3721

From: Daniel Roth <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:24:25 -0700
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@progress.com>, Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>, Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
CC: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E2903CF1E4B5B144B559237FDFB291CE18169399@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Sorry, I should clarify what I'm saying here.

Particularly for design time scenarios, it's appropriate to allow the user to participate in the policy processing.  For example, if you have a proxy generation tool that handles web service policies then it should not fail hard when it encounters an assertion that it doesn't understand.  Instead the tool should warn the user and continue so that the user has the option to manually handle the unrecognized assertion.

In other words there are cases where unrecognized assertions can be reasonably handled, even ignored.  For fully automated policy processing scenarios (ie there is no one to warn) a warn and continue strategy may not be appropriate.

Daniel Roth

-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@progress.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:38 AM
To: Daniel Roth; Sergey Beryozkin; Frederick Hirsch
Cc: Frederick Hirsch; Yalcinalp, Umit; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE: New Attribute keyword to identify 'local' policies #3721

Hi Dan:

> One of the conclusions of the WS-Policy interop workshop held
> in Germany was that even if a policy expression contains an
> unrecognized policy assertion tools can issue a warning and
> ignore it.  However, these warning are annoying and alarming
> to customers, so implementers should avoid leaking out local
> config assertions.

This seems like a shockingly bad idea....  How could you possibly rely
on the WSP framework to express requirements if you took this kind of
position?  And why do we even bother to have wsp:Optional if
everything's "really" optional?

I'm agog.  Please tell me I misunderstood your comment here somehow and
that you aren't really advocating this.

Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 15:24:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:16 UTC