Next in thread →
Next in month →
RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section - Comment/Corrections for latest Proposal (V3)
I would just like to remind folks of our resolution to Issue-11: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-11 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200801/msg00025.html From: Martin Chapman [mailto:] Sent: 03 March 2009 14:27 To: 'Mike Edwards'; 'OASIS Assembly' Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section - Comment/Corrections for latest Proposal (V3) Comments inline: From: Mike Edwards [mailto:] Sent: 03 March 2009 14:15 To: 'OASIS Assembly' Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section - Comment/Corrections for 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. [<MartinC>] Actually I don’t think you can conform to the schema without definitions as root, but ive no problem being explicit. 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. [<MartinC>] I got this from line 3617(pdf) “SCA defines an interoperable packaging format for contributions (ZIP),” [<MartinC>]I think we need a term to suggest universal support is required/expected 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. [<MartinC>]I agree 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
Next in thread →
Next in month →