| Version Control Commit by mike_edwards |
29 |
2009-06-01 |
| Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section 6 |
1 |
2009-06-01 |
| Version Control Commit by baupperle |
14 |
2009-06-01 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] [NEW ISSUE] Assembly specification unclear on Contribution vs Deployment - when can errors in artifacts be reported? |
5 |
2009-06-01 |
| [ISSUE 138] Assembly specification unclear on Contribution vs Deployment -when can errors in artifacts be reported? |
1 |
2009-06-02 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section6 |
2 |
2009-06-02 |
| Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified |
18 |
2009-06-02 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] [NEW ISSUE] Assembly specification unclear onContribution vs Deployment - when can errors in artifacts be reported? |
6 |
2009-06-02 |
| Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section 7-10 |
1 |
2009-06-02 |
| Draft Minutes of 2009-06-02 are attached |
1 |
2009-06-02 |
| Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section 12 |
1 |
2009-06-02 |
| Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section 13-14 |
1 |
2009-06-02 |
| NEW ISSUE: What is a constrainingType file supposed to look like? |
1 |
2009-06-03 |
| Normative language for conformance testing requirement |
4 |
2009-06-03 |
| NEW ISSUE: Need TAs and testcases for property/@file and property/@many=true |
1 |
2009-06-03 |
| NEW ISSUE: ASM50007 has a typo in it. |
2 |
2009-06-03 |
| NEW ISSUE: Need a normative statement for @autowire inheritance |
1 |
2009-06-03 |
| NEW ISSUE: There are no conformance statements in section 8.5 (CD03) |
1 |
2009-06-03 |
| NEW ISSUE: ASM50030 and ASM50031 (CD03) are duplicates |
2 |
2009-06-03 |
| NEW ISSUE: Unmarked MUST on line 1030 (CD03) |
2 |
2009-06-03 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] Re: reviewing ASM test assertions and testcases |
1 |
2009-06-03 |
| NEW ISSUE: ASM60008 and ASM60013 are contradictory |
2 |
2009-06-03 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: What is a constrainingType file supposed tolook like? |
1 |
2009-06-03 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section7-10 |
2 |
2009-06-03 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Need TAs and testcases for property/@file andproperty/@many=true |
1 |
2009-06-03 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Need a normative statement for @autowireinheritance |
1 |
2009-06-04 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: There are no conformance statements insection 8.5 (CD03) |
1 |
2009-06-04 |
| Version Control Commit by booz |
5 |
2009-06-04 |
| Groups - Issue 147 - Proposal (Word) (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03+Issue_147.doc) uploaded |
1 |
2009-06-04 |
| Groups - Issue 147 - Proposal (PDF) (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03+Issue_147.pdf) uploaded |
1 |
2009-06-04 |
| [NEW ISSUE] Assembly Specification does not define the Component Type of aComposite used as an Implementation |
1 |
2009-06-04 |
| [NEW ISSUE] Some TestCases can only be implemented using specificimplementation Languages |
1 |
2009-06-08 |
| [NEW ISSUE] wireFormat and operationSelector element declarations don'thave @abstract="true" |
1 |
2009-06-08 |
| Fw: [sca-assembly-comment] Rebuttal: Against the use of portability andfunctions as reasons for requiring one of the existing 4 languages |
4 |
2009-06-09 |
| Rebuttal: Against the use of portability and functions as reasonsfor requiring one of the existing 4 languages |
1 |
2009-06-10 |
| Major Update of TestCase artifacts completed - Namespaces and Package namesbrought into "OASIS friendly" form |
1 |
2009-06-10 |
| Fw: [sca-assembly-comment] Few comments from Siemens |
1 |
2009-06-12 |
| Groups - CD03-Rev1 Word format (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03-Rev1.doc) uploaded |
1 |
2009-06-16 |
| Groups - CD03-Rev1 PDF format (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03-Rev1.pdf) uploaded |
1 |
2009-06-16 |
| SCA Assembly CD03-Rev1 |
3 |
2009-06-16 |
| ASSEMBLY-121 Conformance to OPTIONAL Normative Statements - Proposal |
1 |
2009-06-16 |
| Late Draft Minutes of 2009-06-09 are attached |
1 |
2009-06-16 |
| Draft Minutes 2009-06-16 are attached |
1 |
2009-06-16 |
| Submission of SCA Assembly Test Suite package for Public Review |
2 |
2009-06-17 |
| Two schema issues with SCA Assembly CD03-Rev1 |
2 |
2009-06-17 |
| Inconsistent and incomplete descriptions of Element attributes andSubelements in Assembly spec |
1 |
2009-06-18 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] Inconsistent and incomplete descriptions of Elementattributes and Subelements in Assembly spec |
1 |
2009-06-18 |
| ASSEMBLY-149: Siemens comment on implementation type conformancerequirement |
1 |
2009-06-19 |
| NEW-ISSUE: Errors in Test_Types.xsd |
1 |
2009-06-19 |
| NEW ISSUE: Namespace problems in C/C++ .componentType files |
1 |
2009-06-19 |
| [ASSEMBLY 152] Public review comment 2 from Siemens: Binding typereqiurement - Status |
1 |
2009-06-22 |
| Comment on the status of work in the Assembly TC |
2 |
2009-06-22 |
| Suggested documentation standards for SCA specification documents |
1 |
2009-06-22 |
| [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution |
15 |
2009-06-22 |
| [ISSUE 132] Rebuttal: Against the use of portability and functions asreasons for requiring one of the existing 4 languages |
1 |
2009-06-23 |
| ISSUE 154: Errors in Test_Types.xsd |
1 |
2009-06-23 |
| ISSUE 155: Namespace problems in C/C++ .componentType files |
1 |
2009-06-23 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 132] Rebuttal: Against the use of portability and functions as reasons for requiring one of the existing 4 languages |
4 |
2009-06-23 |
| Draft minutes of 2009-06-23 are attached |
1 |
2009-06-23 |
| Fw: [sca-assembly-comment] Some more comments |
1 |
2009-06-24 |
| Fw: [sca-assembly-comment] Comments on Public Review Draft 01 |
1 |
2009-06-24 |
| Re: [sca-assembly-comment] .composite extension for composite file isoverly constraining |
1 |
2009-06-24 |
| Re: [sca-assembly-comment] .composite extension for composite file is overly constraining |
1 |
2009-06-24 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] Fw: [sca-assembly-comment] Comments on Public ReviewDraft 01 |
1 |
2009-06-24 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] ASSEMBLY-149: Siemens comment on implementation typeconformance requirement |
1 |
2009-06-24 |
| RE: [sca-assembly] ASSEMBLY-149: Siemens comment on implementation type conformance requirement |
1 |
2009-06-24 |
| Re: [sca-assembly-comment] .composite extension for composite fileis overly constraining |
1 |
2009-06-25 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] ASSEMBLY-149: Siemens comment on implementationtype conformance requirement |
1 |
2009-06-25 |
| RE: [sca-assembly-comment] Some more comments - relating to EventProcessing |
1 |
2009-06-25 |
| Conformace point highlight color |
4 |
2009-06-26 |
| NEW ISSUE: Spec is unclear if callback binding names need to be distinctfrom forward binding names |
1 |
2009-06-27 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Spec is unclear if callback binding namesneed to be distinct from forward binding names |
1 |
2009-06-29 |
| Test Subcommittee Call this week?? |
1 |
2009-06-29 |
| NEW ISSUE: Make support for constrainingType an optional compliance point |
1 |
2009-06-29 |
| ISSUE-137: Clarify the use of a binding name in a reference target -proposal (c) |
1 |
2009-06-29 |
| Re: [sca-assembly] ISSUE-137: Clarify the use of a binding name in areference target - proposal (c) |
1 |
2009-06-30 |
| RE: ASSEMBLY-121 Conformance to OPTIONAL Normative Statements - Revised Proposal |
1 |
2009-06-30 |
