RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section - Comments on Proposal

Of course I have to disagree about defining the document types.
We have to have normative conformance definitions in our spec as what constitutes
a valid document. How can we have statements about an SCA Runtime rejecting
invalid documents if we don’t have definitions of a valid ones?

 

One of the reasons to have this definition separate from runtime
statements, is if someone claims their document is valid yet an SCA Runtime
rejects it as being invalid; who is correct? Now I do not intend to create extra
work here w.r.t test cases, but I do think these definitions have to exist.

 

Martin.

 

 

From: Mike Edwards
[mailto:] 

Sent: 02 March 2009 11:43

To: 'OASIS Assembly'

Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section
- Comments on Proposal

 

Folks, 

Some comments
on the proposal: 

1)  I
think that making a series of SCA-related documents into conformance points, as
per section 12.1,  is unnecessary and unwise. 

The only point
of making these documents into conformance points is if it is intended to write
testcase(s) that will validate those 

documents.
 I do not believe that we have the resources to write such testcases and
as a result, the conformance demands made 

here are a
waste of time and effort. 

What matters is
what an SCA runtime does with the documents - we have that fully specified -
and we have testcases for these claims. 

2) Form of the
conformance statement for documents is incorrect. 

Should read as
follows 

"An SCA
Composite Document is a file that MUST have an SCA <composite/> element
as its root element and MUST conform 

to the
sca-core-1.1.xsd schema and MUST comply with the additional constraints on the
document contents as defined in 

Appendix
C." 

3) "SCA
Interoperable Packaging document" 

This
terminology is not used in the spec.  "Contribution Packaging using
ZIP Packaging format" would be correct. 

Also the
normative statement "A ZIP file containing SCA Documents and other related
artifacts which MUST have a 

SCA Contribution
Document as a top level element."  is simply incorrect.  

Section 11.2.3
states clearly that "it can contain a top-level "META-INF"
directory and a "META-INF/sca-contribution.xml" file 

and there can
also be a "META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml" file in the
package." 

- so the
contribution file is NOT mandatory and it is certainly not "top
level". 

4) Item 4 in
Section 12.2 - Requirement to implement the Web services binding. 

I'd prefer a
looser requirement to implement ONE of the adopted bindings.  Forcing Web
services in all cases seems more 

than is
necessary to me. 

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:   

 

  
  
From: 

  
  
  
"Martin
  Chapman" <> 

  
 

 

  
  
To: 

  
  
  
"'Bryan
  Aupperle'" <>, "'OASIS Assembly'"
  <> 

  
 

 

  
  
Date: 

  
  
  
26/02/2009
  14:33 

  
 

 

  
  
Subject: 

  
  
  
RE:
  [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section

  
 

 

Bryan,

 

Fair
point. Here is another take. I have also put them into the SCA Assembly TC
document archive, as I mistakenly put the first versions  in the Bindings
TC! 

 

WORD:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/31432/sca-assembly-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd02-Rev5%20-%20ISSUE%20101%20v2.doc

 

PDF:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/31433/sca-assembly-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd02-Rev5%20-%20ISSUE%20101%20v2.pdf

 

Martin.

 

From: Bryan Aupperle [mailto:] 

Sent: 24 February 2009 19:57

To: 'OASIS Assembly'

Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section

  

I am a little surprised, given your rather persuasive argument in the Java TC a
couple of weeks ago, that you did not include a contribution as a conformance
target.  It seems to me that if a contribution is going to conform to a
C&I spec, it must also conform to the assembly spec. 

Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.

STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC 

+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)

Internet Address:  

 

  
  
"Martin
  Chapman" <> 

  
02/24/2009
  08:33 AM 

  
  
  
 

  
   

    
    
To

    
    
    
"'OASIS
    Assembly'" <> 

    
   

   

    
    
cc

    
    
   

   

    
    
Subject

    
    
    
[sca-assembly]
    Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section

    
   

  
  

    

  
 

  
   

    
    
   

  
  
 

A proposal can be found at: 

 

WORD: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-bindings/download.php/31382/sca-assembly-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd02-Rev5%20-%20ISSUE%20101.doc

PDF: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-bindings/download.php/31383/sca-assembly-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd02-Rev5%20-%20ISSUE%20101.pdf

 

 

Martin.

Martin Chapman | Standards Professional

Mobile: +353 87 687 6654 

ORACLE Ireland 

"Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
e-mail" 

 

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