On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > When I investigate TUSCANY-3242, I realized that the matching algorithm [2] > is NOT correct. The check against the size of the intents and policySets is > bogus.
It's a fir point about the size of the collections. > > For an SCA wire, the endpoint reference and endpoint can be configured with > interaction policies. Some of the intents are realized by policySets while > the rest are natively supported by the bindings. Depending on the policy > language, there can be different cases to apply a policy. > > a. The policy can only be applied to references > b. The policy can only be applied to services > c. The policy can be applied to both references and services > c.1: The policies on both sides are coupled and have to be compatible > c.2: The policies on both sides can be enforced independently > > Two players should be involved to check the compatibility of the policy > configuration on the wired endpoint reference and enpoint: > * Binding (to handle the natively supported intents) > * Policy Language Provider (to check the compatibility of the policies in > case c.2) > > IMO, we should come up an ExtensionPoint that collects the Policy/Intent > mappers which can be contributed from binding and policy language > extensions. Thoughts? I put a comment in the code to this effect but didn't get to doing anything about it. It seems, for this post, that we need a binding extension to work out which intents and policy sets are actually in force and then a policy language extension to work out if the policy sets that are in force are compatible between reference and service. > > I'll comment out the code in [2] so that I can use itest/policies to > validate the policy builders I'm working. > ok Simon
