RE: [opencsa-ms] Proposed - OpenCSA Steering Committee (StC) Proposed Agenda - 14 August 2009

Can we add an agenda item to discuss the potential impact 
of adding the SCA Eventing related work to the 1.1 release planning of the 
various SCA TCs.

 

I personally think that we should defer support for SCA 
Eventing to post 1.1 release for the following reasons:

A> SCA is already  considered to be a fairly complex technology and in order to 
improve the chances of its adoption we should try to keep it simple and not add 
any more pieces at this point of time.

B> SCA currently has a 
clear focus on SOA based compositions. Accommodating event driven architecture 
(EDA) in SCA at this point of time may 
lead to confusions in the marketplace about 
the value proposition of SCA

C> There is still considerable 
amount of work to be finished by the SCA TCs including testing,  addressing concerns of Microsoft/Siemens, etc. 
Adding SCA eventing will lead to delays in the release of SCA 
specifications.

D> There is no clear consensus about the technical content of the contributed specification for SCA Eventing (even amongst the 
parties contributing the SCA eventing spec to the SCA Assembly 
TC).  Identifying and addressing these technical issues, building test suite, 
providing compliant implementations, etc, is going to make the overall 
SCA release planning unpredictable.

Best wishes,

Sanjay

 

  

  
  From: Mike Kaiser [mailto:] 
  
Sent: Thursday, Aug 13, 2009 12:26 PM
To: OpenCSA Member 
  Section
Subject: [opencsa-ms] Proposed - OpenCSA Steering Committee 
  (StC) Proposed Agenda - 14 August 2009

  

PROPOSED AGENDA - OpenCSA Steering 
  Committee (StC) PROPOSED AGENDA - 14 August 2009 9:00 AM PST 
  

Call-In Information: 

        Participant passcode: 
  784631 

        
  North America Toll free 1-888-240-4148 
        Toll/International +1-719-234-0214 
  
        London, 
  UK, Local +44 (0) 20 7663 2217 
  
        UK toll free 0 800 051 6872 

        *6 mute/un-mute, *0 
  operator, *1 help 

 Our 
  thanks to David Burke and TIBCO for hosting the teleconference number. 
  

        
  
0. Agenda bashing and Roll 
  
        
1. Minutes Approval 

        - 10 July 2009: 
  
        
  
        http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/opencsa-ms/download.php/33329/Open_CSA_SC_20090710_Draft.txt 
  

2. Open Action Item Review and Discussion 
  

        
  AI20081212-001 - Coordinate an effort with Assembly TC to produce an 
  
          
        SCA primer as the specs approach standardization (in 
  review). 

      
            STATUS: On Hold until we get closer to 
  standardization. 
      
                    Keep on 
  hold. 

        
  AI20090313-001 Jeff to send the following recommendation to 
                
  the TC's. 

      
            Recommendation: 
                
  Steering Committee Recommends inclusion of the 
                
  completed test suite with the main package for 
                
  the initial CS vote. 

    
              STATUS: Still open. Jeff will do 
  this.         
                    
      Leave as open. 

        AI20090605-002 David to set up new 
  moderator call for future 
  
                steering committee 
  meetings. 

      
            STATUS:  Targeting completion for 
  August StC meeting. 

    
      
3. Overall TC Milestones 
  Status as discussed by LSC: 
  
        
    
      The following represents the current state of each TC relative 
  
        to Public 
  Reviews         

        * = PR 04/24 - 06/23 
        & = PR 06/08 - 
  08/07 
        
     ? = PR 08/08 - 10/07 
         - = Schedule not available at this 
  time. (lower priority) 

  
        SCA-Assembly TC Specifications (V1.1) 
                
  * SCA Assembly Model Specification 

        SCA-Policy TC Specifications (V1.1) 
  
            
      * SCA Policy Framework 

        SCA-BPEL TC Specifications (V1.1) 
  
            
      * SCA WS-BPEL Client and Implementation Specification 
  

        SCA-C/C++ TC 
  Specifications (V1.1) 
    
              * SCA Client and Implementation 
  Model Specification for C 
  
                * SCA Client and 
  Implementation Model Specification for C++ 

        SCA-J TC Specifications 
  (V1.1) 
        
          & SCA Java Common Annotations and APIs 
  Specification 
      
            & SCA Java Component Implementation 
  Specification 
      
            - SCA EJB Session Bean Binding 
  Specification 
      
            - SCA Spring Component Implementation 
  Specification 
      
             - SCA JEE Integration 
  Specification 

      
    SCA-Bindings TC Specifications (V1.1) 
                ? SCA Web 
  Services Binding Specification 
  
                ? SCA JMS Binding 
  Specification 
      
            ? SCA JCA Binding Specification 
  
            
      - SCA HTTP Binding Specification 

        SDO TC Specifications 
  (V3.0) 
        
          - Service Data Objects Specification 
  
          
        - Service Data Objects for Java 

        Where are we on the Test 
  Suite progress for each? 
    
              (i.e. Test Cases, Test Assertions) 
  For each 
        
            - When is TC final review scheduled? 
  
            
        - When is vote for PR scheduled? 
                
    - When is Submission to TC Admin for PR scheduled? 
                
    - When is PR targeted?         

4. Compliant implementation plans       
    
        We 
  know that we need something about mid year.  There are 
        several companies working 
  this but implementation timing is 
        unknown.  Open Source (Apache Tuscany, 
  looks to be one 
      
    source for at least some of the TC's.  Fabric3 may be another). 
    
        
  Each TC will have to make it's own decision on what compliant 
        implementations they are 
  going to use based on what's available 
        in the         
  timeframe of standardization and what their test plan 
        looks like. 
  

        The SC must 
  eventually resolve the question of "how it will 
        make approval decisions" 
  and communicate this to the TC's. 
        It is expected that the Testing Plans for 
  each TC will 
      
    incorporate implementation/testing aspects which encompass 
  
        the broader "SCA" 
  picture. 

******>     
     We must address the following core questions: 
          Are we all in 
  agreement that the exit criteria in each 
          charter applies to Member Submission 
  for vote and not 
      
      for Committee Specification approval? 

          At this stage, what 
  (if any) compliant applications 
  
          are the likely candidates which the SC will likely 
  
          
  generally accept? 

    
      FROM JUNE 05, 2009 MEETING: 
        There is some debate as to whether the exit 
  criteria requiring 
    
      spec validation by two implementations is necessary prior 
  to 
        
  Committee Specification or not. 

        (A) 
        One camp argues that CS is defined by OASIS 
  process as a final 
    
      deliverable and therefore is subject to the exit criteria. 
   The 
        
  CS is a standard of sorts, it is just not one which has been 
        approved by the entire 
  OASIS Membership.  Many (maybe 70%) of 
        the OASIS specs are in this state without 
  intent to gain 
      
    OASIS Membership standardization status.  Because of this 
  
        CS status should 
  not be granted until there is validation of 
        at least 2 implementations.  we 
  shouldn't have final deliverables 
        which haven't been fully debugged using the 
  2 implementation 
      
    compliance rule. 

  
        (B) 
    
      The other camp argues that public perception is that CS's 
  are 
        not 
  OASIS standards. Perception is that they do represent a 
        level of specification 
  which is stable enough that Vendors 
        and customers can implement with some 
  assurances that the OASIS 
  
        Member Standard (if there is one) is likely to have 
  little if 
        
  any substantive change.  This level of specification is used 
  
        by some as 
  the tipping point to make resource/dollar/timing 
        decisions around formal 
  implementations. Therefore, CS status 
        should be granted to encourage 
  implementations to formally 
  
        validate against. 
        CONTINUE DISCUSSION 
        

5. New Teleconference Passcode Process 
        Status? 
        

6. Response to Microsoft and Siemens SCA-Assembly 
  Public Review comments. 
    
      Microsoft and Siemens (and other internal SCA members) 
  have 
        
  raised the question around which of the two following paths 
        should be taken for 
  claiming SCA Compliance (i.e. A or B). 
        
        A) SCA Compliant extensions must be 
  compliant with all of the 
  
           following: 
                a) SCA 
  Assembly, 
        
          b) SCA Policy, 
                c) SCA Binding, 
  and 
          
        d) at least one of the SCA Implementation Types 
  
            
          (currently Java, BPEL, C or C++ ) 
  

        B) SCA 
  Compliant extensions must be compliant with all of the 
          
   following: 
      
            a) SCA Assembly, 
                
  b) SCA Policy and 
      
            c) SCA Binding 

        
        What is the Steering 
  Committee position? 

    
      Additionally, Siemens has challenged the notion that c) 
  should 
        
  also not be included in the compliancy requirement. 
        
        What is the Steering 
  Committee position? 

7. Any 
  Other Business? 

    
              
8. Future SC Agenda Topics? 

        
9. 
  Next Meeting 
      
       - The next regular teleconference is scheduled for Sept 
  11th, 2009 
        
          9:00am PST, 12:00pm EST, 5:00pm UK 
  

        (OpenCSA 
  Steering Committee calls are scheduled for the second Friday 
                
  of each month.) 

10. 
  Adjourn