Re: [sca-bpel] [Issue 38]: Is the 'MUST' in section 2.1.2 needed?

This is now issue 38: http://osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-38

Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> Title: is the 'MUST' in section 2.1.2 needed?
> 
> Target: SCA BPEL C&I
> 
> Description:
> This issue came up as a result of discussion of test assertion SBL-TA-2012.
> The test assertion, which is based on SBPEL2014, is not really testable. 
> OR to be more precises perhaps could be testable for some corner cases, 
> which the SCA BPEL TC (very likely) is not going to test.
> The problem is that the requirement states that the binding configured 
> must know the identity of the partner as soon as the PL becomes active. 
> It is not clear how that would happen for the bindings that we define. 
> It seems to assume that the binding and the port associated with the 
> binding is visible only to other SCA references. It is not clear why/how 
> this would be true.
> A related minor issue is that it talks about the 'identity' of the 
> partner. Does it really mean 'identity' or the 'location'? The 
> parenthetical statement seems to indicate that it is the location, not 
> identity.
> 
> Proposal:
> Two possible solutions:
> 1) If this is indeed a corner case which we want to enable but not test, 
> we could s/MUST/SHOULD/
> 2) If this is a corner case that we don't intend to test nor do we see 
> it serve a useful purpose then we should just get rid of section 2.1.2
> 
> -Anish
> -- 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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