Re: [sca-assembly] ASSEMBLY-149: Siemens comment on implementationtype conformance requirement

Let's move this discussion over to the ASSEMBLY-132 thread.
I'm encouraged to see the progress there towards finding a way to
allow conformance for other implementation types.

   Simon

Martin Chapman wrote:
> Just thinking aloud here, but what if there is just a requirement to 
> make test suits publically available for any impl language.
> 
> All Open CSA member TCs would qualify, as would any proprietary 
> technology provided the test suite is made available.
> 
>  
> 
> Martin.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Mike Edwards [mailto:]
> *Sent:* 24 June 2009 15:24
> *To:* OASIS Assembly
> *Subject:* Re: [sca-assembly] ASSEMBLY-149: Siemens comment on 
> implementation type conformance 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>