Re: [sca-bpel] Action item: SCA BPEL conformance statements and componentType

Title: [sca-bpel] Action item: SCA BPEL conformance statements and
component Type

This is an interesting proposal, but I'd like some time to mull it over
and discuss it before we do anything formal on it, especially, since I
will be unable to attend the call this morning.

Danny

Martin Chapman wrote:
00c301c9141d$2dfb2290$"
 type="cite">
  
  
  

  

  
Myself and Anish had a chat about conformance
targets and component types. Here's a summary and

conclusion.

  

Martin.

-----

  

WRT component type (CT) there are three cases:

  

1) There is no CT side file and there aren't any SCA extensions in the

BPEL process

2) There is no CT side file and there are SCA extensions in the BPEL
process

3) There is a CT side file.

  

In case (1), the default rules that we define for the introspected CT

kick in. The introspected CT is the effective CT.

In case (2), the default rules in conjunction with our extension rules

specify what the effective CT will be.

In case (3), the introspected CT is merged/overridden with/by the side

file to provide the effective CT.

  

SCA has the following as conformance targets (relevant to issue 18):

  

a) component type side files

b) composite files

c) SCA runtime

  

We think we should restrict the conformance statements to these targets

and not create new conformance targets that aren't physical artifacts

that you can point to.

  

We would like to propose that

  

1) In the assembly spec we define a term 'effective CT' (or something

like that -- the name isn't important). There is already issue 36 [1]

filed in Assembly TC that is meant to address how the CT side file

relates to introspection (subset/override) and essentially what the

'effective CT' will be. In addressing that issue we can define precisely

how the effective CT is calculated from the side file and the

introspected CT, and we can complete the conformance statements

about the relationships between the conformance targets (comonent type
side files,

composite file, and implementations)

  

2) In the assembly spec, we should have conformance statements that

applies to the SCA runtime which say what the runtime MUST/MUST NOT do

given an effective CT.

For example, it would talk about the fact that all services that are

part of the effective CT must be enabled/deployed/made available by the

runtime.

  

3) In the bpel spec we should define what the introspected CT/default

rules are. These would be definition/rules. Not conformance statements.

The bpel spec or any other impl spec will not contain conformance

statements wrt CT, only rules/assertions.

  

4) In the bpel spec we should have conformance statement about the BPEL

process. For example: Both sca:service and sca:reference attributes MUST

NOT be present on the same partnerlink in a SCA BPEL process.

These are the rules to produce a valid introspected CT; violate these
rules in your source,

and you have an non-compliant source.

  

In effect, the implementation specs specify (i) rules for introspection

and extensions and (ii) conformance statements that apply to

implementation sources (such as BPEL process). And assembly spec

specifies (i) how effective CT is calculated and (ii) conformance

statements on SCA runtime wrt what it does with the effecttive CT.

  

  

[1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-36

  

  

---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

  

  
  

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature