Thanks for the info Raymond. ...snip > It seems that WS-AT only cares if the TX context is flowed inside the WS > message. I'm not sure how we define the policySets for the implementation > intents such as sca:managedTransaction.global.
Not sure about this. It says "For application messages that use a SOAP binding, the Atomic Transaction coordination context MUST flow as a SOAP header in the message" Does this mean that for applications that don't use the SOAP binding we don't care what happens OR for applications that don't use the SOAP binding something is expected to happen but it's not defined by the spec. I prefer the latter. It's certainly the case that our policy must have a binding specific flavour. Hence it maybe that we 1/ don't map wsat:ATAssertion to any particular Tuscany policy provider and rely on binding implementations to know how to deal with it 2/ map wsat:ATAssertion to a single Tuscany policy provider and have that policy provider do different things depending on what binding is in place 3/ map wsat:ATAssertion to multiple Tuscany policy providers, one for each binding. We can't do this at the moment 4/ Use different policy assertions for the application of the atomic transaction assertion to different bindings. In this case wsat:ATAssertion is reserved for the web service binding I think we are heading in the direction of 4/ although the code from 1.x, and hence what we need to review in 2.x, does quite a bit of 1/ at the moment. I don't mind relying on the binding code to consume assertions per se but it worries my that we don't have a good way of advertising to the Tuscany user that they are available. This may just be a matter of documentation but if it came to it that we need policy providers that did actually do very much then I'd rather have that than nothing at all. Simon
