Dave,
I've moved 107 to the top of the list.
Once we've opened 108 I would expect that also to be top priority;
the proposed resolution email for 107 also includes one for 108.
Looks like the alternative resolution
for BINDINGS-95 is getting some votes, I did think it was better to have
the rules defined in one place rather than distributed in a set of statements.
For BINDINGS-104, I agree that there's
overlap in those statements. To paraphrase, 30015 says jndiName must
specify a resource location, and 30016 says that that location must identify
a resource of the correct type. 30016 does really require that the
attribute has a value to be meaningful, so we could combine these
from:
If the @create attribute value for a
destination, connectionFactory or activationSpec element is "never"
then the @jndiName attribute MUST specify the location of the existing
resource [BJM30015]
and
If the @create attribute value for a
destination, connectionFactory or activationSpec element is "never"
and the resource is not present at the location identified by the @jndiName
attribute, or the location refers to a resource of an incorrect type then
the SCA runtime MUST raise an error [BJM30016]
to:
If the @create attribute value for a
destination, connectionFactory or activationSpec element is "never"
and the @jndiName attribute is not specified, or the resource is not present
at the location identified by the @jndiName attribute, or the location
refers to a resource of an incorrect type then the SCA runtime MUST raise
an error [BJM30016]
and delete BJM30015.
If you are happy with that I'll post
a revised proposal.
Regards, Simon
Simon Holdsworth
STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair,
AT&T and Boeing Lab Advocate
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK
Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898
Internet -
From:
David Booz <>
To:
Date:
09/12/2009 21:44
Subject:
Re: [sca-bindings] Proposed resolutions
for issues - overview
Hi Simon,
A few comments:
(1) BINDINGS-95: I prefer the alternative resolution in http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200911/msg00010.html
(2) BINDINGS-104: In the resolution, what's the difference between BJM30015
and BJM30016. 30016 looks like it subsumes all of 30015.
(3) BINDINGS-107: We need to resolve this on the next telecon. Can we get
this moved to the top of the priority list in the telecon....just in case?
Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:
Simon
Holdsworth ---12/07/2009 06:30:42 AM---Folks, This is a summary of the
set of open issues that we currently have with
From:
Simon Holdsworth <>
To:
Date:
12/07/2009 06:30 AM
Subject:
[sca-bindings] Proposed resolutions for issues - overview
Folks,
This is a summary of the set of open issues that we currently have with
proposed resolutions, and my take on them. Hopefully this will expedite
resolution of the issues in the TC - I would really like to get these resolved
prior to the Christmas break, allowing a new revision of the bindings specs
and TA documents early in the new year which the TC could then consider
for the next committee draft.
I would encourage you to take a look at these proposed resolutions if at
all possible before Thursday's meeting and raise any concerns via email
prior to the meeting so that we can progress through the resolutions quickly.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-94:
scaCallbackDestination destination name unclear
Proposed resolution in email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200911/msg00008.html
Latest email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200912/msg00001.html
Summary:
Clarify the syntax of the destination "name" that appears in
the scaCallbackDestination user property - proposal is that this should
be a JMS URI.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-95:
BJM30032 and BJM30035 conflict
Proposed resolution: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200911/msg00010.html
Summary:
These normative statements conflict because the conditions under which
they apply overlap.
The proposal is to make the statements more specific by including additional
conditions under which they apply which were previously implicit from the
context of the statements; it covers issues 95, 105 and 106 which all affect
the same overall set of statements.
Linked email provides two alternatives: modify existing statements to ensure
conditions on the statements are exclusive, or replace all the statements
with single statements that define behaviour via a prioritised list of
conditions.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-96:
BJM60012 and BJM60013 conflict
Status: Proposed resolution in JIRA
Summary:
These normative statements conflict because the conditions under which
they apply overlap.
The proposal is to make one of the statements more specific by including
another condition under which it applies which was previously implicit
from the context of the statement.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-103:
optional used in normative statement
Status: Proposed resolution in email http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200911/msg00037.html
Summary:
"optional" is used in a normative statement without normative
meaning.
Proposal is to replace the use of "optional" and ensure that
the normative statements are clear, along with a schema update to make
the schema reflect the intended optionality of the jndiName attribute.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-104:
Expected @create attribute value not clear in some normative statements
Status: Proposed resolution in JIRA
Summary:
Another case where statements overlap due to omission of contextual information.
Proposal is to explicitly state the conditions in the normative statements
that previously were implicit from context.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-105:
BJM30025 has no normative keyword
Proposed resolution: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200911/msg00010.html
Summary:
This issue overlaps with BINDINGS-95, see above.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-106:
BJM30027 has no normative keyword
Proposed resolution: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200911/msg00010.html
Summary:
This issue overlaps with BINDINGS-95, see above.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-107:
What is the purpose of definitions/binding element?
Status: Proposed resolution in email http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200911/msg00035.html
Summary:
Use of bindings element in definitions file is not necessary, some agreement
on just removing all mention of it from bindings specs, reflected in the
proposed resolution. This would also apply to BINDINGS-108 when opened.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-101:
Opaque references - need for a terminology list?
Status: no proposed resolution
Summary:
Needs editors to look at the specifications and come up with a way to define
references to SCA assembly and policy terms.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-102:
Need to specify all valid enumerations for @create attribute and others
Status: no proposed resolution
Summary:
Needs editors to look at the specifications and identify where enumeration
values are not fully defined.
Regards, Simon
Simon Holdsworth
STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair,
AT&T and Boeing Lab Advocate
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK
Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898
Internet -
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
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
