Folks,
Comments:
1) BINDINGS 107 - like Dave, I want
this to be top priority - it may impact the SCA Assembly spec which we
are trying to close
other comments inline...
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 Holdsworth/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To:
Date:
07/12/2009 11:34
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.
<mje>
It looks like a client SCA app needs to set
both the scaCallbackDestination property and the JMSReplyTo, just in case
it is talking
to a non-SCA service? In which case,
why not just use JMSReplyTo all the time?
</mje>
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.
<mje>
I prefer the alternative version with explicit
ordering (simpler to understand)
</mje>
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.
<mje>
Of course, we could require JMSReplyTo to
always be set for any forward message... as per my comment under issue
94
</mje>
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.
<mje>
+1
</mje>
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.
<mje>
+1
</mje>
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
