There are a number of issues related to conformance that I think
the Liaison SC should discuss since they cross TC boundaries.
Each Spec is required to have its own conformance section,
and normally these are stand alone entities.
Typically we would see statements like “To conform to
this specification a vendor MUST implement all the features outlined in sections
x thru z” .
However for some of our specs this will not make sense. Take
Bindings for example. Since we are not defining plug and play apis to allow a
binding vendor to be different from an SCA runtime vendor, how would we write
the conformance in each binding spec?
Also, some have talked about the notion of conforming to
SCA v1.1, but that would probably encompass Assembly, Policy, bindings and the
c+i.
For example “To conform to sca v1.1. a vendor MUST
support assembly, policy, bindings.ws (for example) implemented in one of the
following languages according to its c+I: java, bpel, c++”. Where are we
going to make such a declaration? Assembly?
Martin.
Martin Chapman | Standards Professional
Mobile: +353 87 687 6654
ORACLE Ireland
"Please consider your
environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail"