Re: [sca-assembly] ASSEMBLY-149: Siemens comment on implementation typeconformance requirement

Simon,

To quote from your email:

"as long
as

each implementation technology conforms to the Assembly and Policy

specifications and passes the Assembly and Policy conformance tests.

The same requirement should be sufficient for SCA conformance."

- this begs the question "how do
you ensure that each implementation technology conforms to

the Assembly & Policy specifications
and passes the conformance tests?"

We need a concrete approach to answer
this question.  It is what I have been debating in the

email exchanges with Jim and with Don
Ferguson.

Do you have a view on how this can be
achieved?

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:
Simon Nash <>

To:
OASIS Assembly <>

Date:
19/06/2009 10:43

Subject:
[sca-assembly] ASSEMBLY-149: Siemens
comment on implementation type conformance requirement

I think the arguments put forward in the public review
comment by

Siemens make a good case for relaxing the conformance rule that an

SCA runtime must support at least one of the OpenCSA Member Section

adopted implementation types.

The architecture of SCA has been carefully designed to support a

wide range of different technologies for implementations, interfaces,

and protocols.  The flexibility and adaptability that this provides

is a key strength of SCA, enabling the use of SCA across a very broad

range of technologies, environments and applications.

For SCA to be successful, it must be widely adopted by the industry.

Unfortunately, from this Siemens comment as well as other public review

comments, it is becoming apparent that the conformance rules in the

public review draft standard could have the effect of discouraging

broad adoption of SCA by imposing conformance requirements that are

too onerous for some prospective adopters.

The Assembly TC's response to ASSEMBLY-132 said that the requirement

to support one of the OpenCSA adopted implementation types could be

satisfied by bringing other proposed implementation types into the

OpenCSA standards.  This Siemens comment gives good reasons why this

many not be possible if the underlying implementation technology

is itself proprietary, domain specific, or non-standard.

To promote broad industry adoption of SCA, the flexibility and

modularity of the technical architecture should be matched by similar

flexibility and modularity in the conformance rules.  From a technical

standpoint there is no requirement for different components within an

SCA assembly to share the same implementation technology, as long as

each implementation technology conforms to the Assembly and Policy

specifications and passes the Assembly and Policy conformance tests.

The same requirement should be sufficient for SCA conformance.

   Simon

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

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