RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section - Comment/Correctionsfor latest Proposal (V3)

Martin,

Some comments and corrections on the
latest proposal:

<without prejudice to my view that
documents should not be conformance points  ;-) >

1) SCA Definitions document:

The current proposal text does not require
that the definitions document have a <definitions/> element as its
root.  I think that it should.

Revised text:

SCA Definitions Document:

An SCA Definitions Document is a file that
MUST have an SCA <definitions/> element as its root and 

MUST conform to the sca-definition-1.1.xsd
schema and MUST comply with the additional constraints 

on the document contents as defined in Appendix
C.

2) SCA Interoperable Packaging Document

Again, I ask where this terminology
comes from.  It is not in the current specification. "Interoperable"
gives the wrong

impression about this format - it implies
that it is being sent via some kind of interoperable service.

I suggest the name "SCA Contribution
Packaging using ZIP Document"

( alternatively just "SCA Contribution
Packaging Document" )

I also recommend that the text is changed
as follows:

SCA Contribution Packaging using ZIP Document:

An SCA Contribution Packaging using ZIP document
is a ZIP file containing a contribution made up of SCA Documents and/or
other artifacts. 

The ZIP file MAY contain a top-level "META-INF"
directory, and MAY contain a  "META-INF/sca-contribution.xml"
file, 

and MAY contain a "META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml"
file.

3) SCA Runtime Bindings requirement

I am not convinced that the final sentence
of bullet 4 adds anything -

" Other OpenCSA Member Section
adopted bindings MAY also be supported."

I suggest removing this.

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:
"'OASIS Assembly'" <>

Date:
02/03/2009 19:41

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

3rd attempt based on today's con call and  comments
on email.

WORD:

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/31486/sca-assembly-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd02-Rev5%20-%20ISSUE%2010

1%20v3.doc

PDF:

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/31487/sca-assembly-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd02-Rev5%20-%20ISSUE%2010

1%20v3.pdf

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:]

> Sent: 02 March 2009 18:27

> To: Mike Edwards

> Cc: 'OASIS Assembly'

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

> 

> 

> On Mar 02, 2009, at 3:43 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:

> 

> >

> > 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.

> 

> This argument doesn't make sense to me.

> 

> Where do we specify what documents it has to process and which ones
it

> doesn't. If the specs define it implicitly, then what's the harm of

> making the definition explicit? If they don't, then we have a big
hole

> i think.

> 

> The purpose from me perspective is not about producing more tests,
but

> in making sure we are clear in the specs.

> 

> cheers,

>    jeff

> 

> 

> 

> >

> >

> >

> > 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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> 

> --

> Jeff Mischkinsky            
               
               
                 
               
               


> Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware          
               
                 
               
        +1(650)506-1975

>                  and
Web Services Standards              
               
               
               500
Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9

> Oracle                
                 
               
                 
               
                 
               
                 Redwood
Shores, CA 94065

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> 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

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