Support the ability to specify policySet or intents on elements in a SCDL file without changing the SCDL file (external file).

PROVENANCE: SCA-164 by booz on 2006-09-29 13:33:13]

-- Ashok Malhotra

This issue is large and is being managed in several parts:
1) External attachment mechanism with infoset proposal is attached to this
email:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-policy/200804/msg00012.html
a. Is the XPath mechanism too complex? Do we need XPath functions to mitigate complexity?
b. Use of IRI to reference WSDL interfaces:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-policy/email/archives/200804/msg00040.html

2) What happens to the "pull" mechanism (i.e. intents are used to find and attach appropriate policySets) given this new "push" model?
Open Action 20080421-01 against Mike E and Ashok for alternative views on this question.
a. Are pushed policy sets still validated against attached intents?

3) Consider restricting the use of policySet attribute to binding elements only
a. Note: Assembly Issue 39 just added @policySet to the SCDL <interface/> element.

4) Will the external attachment mechanism be used to attach intents?

5) Is the external attachment mechanism extensible in order to allow vendors to use additional context in the attachment point? Possibly another way to state the same question is to consider the use of vendor extensions in the infoset as being available for inclusion in an XPath attachment expression.

6) Can the external attachment mechanism be used to attach anything that a deployer might do to an SCA application during deployment, such as attachment of a binding(s)?

7) Attachment of capabilities (Issue 33) should be possible through the external attachment mechanism? This is similar to attachment of intents except that they would probably not be attached to @requires.

8) XML structure of the attachment mechanism needs to be defined.