Re: [sca-assembly] CD 01 revision 1 available and status of issueresolutions

Anish,

"OK, but
22 and 35 are the same issue with different resolution. Which 

one should I apply? Note that both contain 2119 keywords."

I read those resolutions as being both valid, addressing
different

parts of the spec - I say - apply both.

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.

Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.

IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.

Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  

Email:  

Anish Karmarkar <>

02/07/2008 18:40

To

Martin Chapman <>

cc

"'OASIS Assembly'" <>

Subject

Re: [sca-assembly] CD 01 revision 1
available and status of issue resolutions

Martin Chapman wrote:

> I just went through the JIRA logs and the email archive for minutes
and here's what I

> found.

> 

> 

>> 14: done only as it applies to the component property. The resolution

>> was only for component property, but this should apply to composite

>> property, component type property (what about 

>> constrainingType property?)

> 

> 

>> 17: JIRA not updated with the resolution, so don't know what to
apply

> 

> Resolution to 17 is recorded in the minutes of 19th February. Jira
needs to be

> updated.

> 

> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/email/archives/200802/msg000

> 93.html

> 

Thanks. I'll get this resolution in rev 2 of CD 01.

>> 18: depends on 12, 12 is closed but don't see it being 

>> applied. Also the 

>> problem as stated in 18 doesn't exist.

> 

> Issue 18 was resolved on the 5th Feb 08 call.

> 

> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/email/archives/200802/msg000

> 46.html

> 

Thanks.

> Has this reolution been folded in, thus making it look like the problem
didn't exist?

> 

No. Resolutions of both 12 and 18 have not been folded in.

18 resolves a problem (the presence of 'promote' attribute in component

ref/service) that does not exists as the spec stands. But implementing

resolution of 18 does not lead to any contradiction and IMHO resolution

of 18 does make our schema look much better.

Unless there is an objection I'll implement resolutions of both 12 and

18 as they are recorded.

> As for 12, the JIRA change history has Scott recording it as resolved
and closed on

> the same day, and the minutes record the approved motion to "Close
and Resolve...."

> 

> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/26042/SCA%20Ass

> embly%20minutes%202007-11-06.html#d1e445

> 

> I believe this was before we became more precise in the usage of the
terms resolve and

> close, and thus I believe closing it is a mistake. Therefore it suggest
we correct it

> back to resolved and let the editors apply the change.

> 

Thanks to the chairs for updating the JIRA.

> 

>> 22: is this a dup of 35? 35 is closed by does not have the 

>> resolution in 

>> JIRA.

> 

> 35 was resolved on the 8th Jan 08 call:

> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/email/archives/200801/msg000

> 18.html

> Jira should be updated with this link to recored the decision.

> 

> 

OK, but 22 and 35 are the same issue with different resolution. Which 

one should I apply? Note that both contain 2119 keywords.

-Anish

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS

at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU