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
