I am also planning to be out due to a special event. I prefer to follow Martin's suggestion to skip one meeting.
--
Adrian
On May 14, 2013, at 5:29 AM, "Alex Heneveld" <> wrote:
>
> Only concern is that there are other P1 issues to discuss and at least one proposal.
> If there is a capable pro-tem chair volunteer that might be better?
>
> --A
>
>
> On 13/05/2013 18:55, Martin Chapman wrote:
>> Alex et al,
>>
>> I will probably not be able to make this Wednesday's TC call so I was thinking of cancelling and handing over the time slot to a pdp call - this would not be a formal call to maintain voting rights etc.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Martin.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Alex Heneveld [mailto:]
>>> Sent: 13 May 2013 18:17
>>> To:
>>> Subject: [camp] PDP subcommittee and next meeting
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi folks-
>>>
>>> Thanks to all who joined the call just now. Productive. My notes and thoughts
>>> below.
>>>
>>> I'll send an invite to the list for tomorrow's call at 4pm UK / 8am PDT, using
>>> GTM details (with Switzerland for Anish this time):
>>>
>>> https://www3.gotomeeting.com/join/759306270
>>>
>>> United States: 1 (646) 982-0002
>>> United Kingdom: 44 (0) 203 535 0624
>>> Switzerland: 41 (0) 435 0167 07
>>> Germany: 49 (0) 811 8899 6976
>>> Ireland: 353 (0) 14 845 975
>>> Access Code: 759-306-270
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>
>>> SELECTED NOTES/COMMENTS
>>> (Not intended as a transcript of the call, but my sense and my thoughts. Please
>>> feel free to amend by email.)
>>>
>>> DP component specs --
>>> typically become components, and often the platform will supply more
>>> components;
>>> but the platform MAY NOT reflect a component in the DP spec with a
>>> component in the platform
>>> (e.g. in a paas which e.g. uses a WAR as an input but doesn't model them as
>>> top-level ACT's)
>>>
>>> There are valid reasons why people would want to represent a Platform
>>> Component in the DP (e.g. providing a concrete topology, asking for a server,
>>> asking for a git repo); but in general leaving it abstract, giving App
>>> Components (artifacts) and requirements, is likely to be more portable /
>>> better.
>>>
>>> Requirements as explicit types (Alex's (1b) ) tentatively seems clearer now, vs
>>> (1a) in Alex's note from Gil.
>>> Requirements expressed in such a way provide abstraction independent of the
>>> component nodes -- more flexible than just components, and more formal and
>>> dependable than mixins (1c).
>>>
>>> Traits as requirements (Alex's (2a) ) as a peer to "relationship"
>>> requirements seems a reasonable
>>> approach but need more time to process. The line between a "provider /
>>> supertype" requirement on a component and the "relationship" is blurry -- e.g.
>>> in case of a git repo, it might be part of a component (e.g. OpenShift) or it
>>> might be a separate component.
>>>
>>> END
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates
>>> this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
