RE: [bt-spec] BTP Issue 26 : Multiple conformance points should bedefined.

[Peter Furniss <peter.furniss@choreology.com>]

 

BTP Issue 26 : Multiple conformance points should be defined.

Category: technical
Submitter: Bill Cox, (for all BEA members)
Submitter's identification: issue E
Detail:
Alistair Green's and Mark Potts' separate suggestions on conformance partially addresss the problems caused by combining cohesion and atomic. Some restructuring of the Draft will be necessary, probably into separate sections for atomic and cohesion.
Proposed Remedy:
I believe that these discussions are under way, but not yet reflected in text.

---

 

The conformance section in the 0.9 draft does provide for multiple conformance points and allows implementations to choose support atoms only or atoms and cohesions. It defines the conformance points in terms of whch roles are supported, which in turn will refer to which messages and which parameters of the messages are used.

 

Conformance would seem likely to be a topic for the f-t-f.

 

(I have added links to what I think is Mark's messages referred to in the issue list entry for this issue (it was sent very close in time to the distribution of 0.9). I'm not sure which of Alastair's messages was meant)

 

Peter

------------------------------------------
Peter Furniss
Technical Director, Choreology Ltd
web: http://www.choreology.com
email:  peter.furniss@choreology.com
phone:  +44 20 7670 1679
direct: +44 20 7670 1783
mobile: 07951 536168
13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX