[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: F2F meeting minutes - 2nd day
|
Folks, Here are the meeting minutes. sabin. |
<room name="sca-assembly-tc" time="1233046490988" dateTime="2009-01-27T03:54:50.988-05:00"> <comment time="1233073871070" dateTime="2009-01-27T11:31:11.070-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Greetings folks</comment> <comment time="1233074170440" dateTime="2009-01-27T11:36:10.440-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">uesday 27th January 08:30 - 09:00 Administrivia & agenda reset 09:00 - 09:30 ASSEMBLY-37 Need to clarify contents of an SCA Domain virtual composite 09:30 - 10:15 ASSEMBLY-48 Defaulting composite reference targets to internal components 10:15 - 10:30 ASSEMBLY-105 Add Support for Conversational Services in a future version 10:30 - 10:45 Break 10:45 - 11:30 ASSEMBLY-34 Define error handling 11:30 - 12:00 ASSEMBLY-90 Clarify @promote in the context of composite includes 12:00 - 13:00 Lunch 13:00 - 13:45 ASSEMBLY-97 Need Assembly level definition for "AllowsPassByReference" 13:45 - 14:15 ASSEMBLY-64 Specification inconsistent on whether a default value for Property on a Constraining Type is allowed or not 14:15 - 15:00 ASSEMBLY-46 Dynamic Aspects of the Domain not adequately described in the Assembly Specification 15:00 - 15:15 Break 15:15 - 15:30 ASSEMBLY-80 Create an Event Processing Model for SCA 15:30 - 17:00 Work Plan for Specification - towards Public Review Draft & Review Process 17:00 - 17:30 Leave open for follow-up & conclusion 17:30 Finish</comment> <comment time="1233074778795" dateTime="2009-01-27T11:46:18.795-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">ASSEMBLY-37 Need to clarify contents of an SCA Domain virtual composite http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-37 Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200901/msg00083.html</comment> <comment time="1233074887812" dateTime="2009-01-27T11:48:07.812-05:00" type="c1" who="Bryan Aupperle">With Graham and Sabin, do we have sufficient members to open the new issues?</comment> <comment time="1233075341264" dateTime="2009-01-27T11:55:41.264-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200901/msg00062.html</comment> <comment time="1233075349416" dateTime="2009-01-27T11:55:49.416-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">CD02-Rev1</comment> <comment time="1233075349806" dateTime="2009-01-27T11:55:49.806-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">yes we have 16 out of 24...66%</comment> <comment time="1233075691928" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:01:31.928-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">scribe: Sabin Ielceanu</comment> <comment time="1233075980313" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:06:20.313-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Dave: Change the 1st line of Para 1 of section 12.6 to say "The domain-level composite is like a virtual composite."</comment> <comment time="1233075992691" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:06:32.691-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Simon: I don't agree</comment> <comment time="1233076071474" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:07:51.474-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Dave: OK, leave it and we can move on.</comment> <comment time="1233076077232" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:07:57.232-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Dave: There is no normative tag on it so it is fine</comment> <comment time="1233076278261" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:11:18.261-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Section 12.6.1</comment> <comment time="1233076284480" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:11:24.480-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Simon: I like what this paragraph (12.6.1) sais. I do not wish to change the words in this sentence</comment> <comment time="1233076350355" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:12:30.355-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Dave: I disagree with Simon. If we were to keep these words, we should at least say that the component references become external visible</comment> <comment time="1233076377734" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:12:57.734-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">All of the composites components become top-level components and the component services become externally visible services (eg. they would be present in a WSDL description of the domain).</comment> <comment time="1233076404823" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:13:24.823-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">...this is the proposed version of that last sentence of the paragraph</comment> <comment time="1233076506480" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:15:06.480-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">+ 1 new sentence at the end:</comment> <comment time="1233076519999" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:15:19.999-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">"The meaning of any promoted services and references in the supplied composite is not defined; since there is no composite scope outside the domain composite, the usual idea of promotion has no utility."</comment> <comment time="1233076559616" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:15:59.616-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Mike: This sentence will be added at the end of the paragraph (12.6.1)</comment> <comment time="1233076650647" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:17:30.647-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Paragrapg B.10</comment> <comment time="1233076727277" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:18:47.277-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">"A Domain also contains Wires that connect together the Components. A Domain does not contain promoted Services or promoted References, since promotion has no meaning at the Domain level."</comment> <comment time="1233077130777" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:25:30.777-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Mike: None of the statements that are changed by this proposal are normative</comment> <comment time="1233077204303" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:26:44.303-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion: m:simon s:sabin "resolve issue 37 with the words from the chat room on the base of the proposal received from Scott"</comment> <comment time="1233077229179" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:27:09.179-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Issue 37 is resolved</comment> <comment time="1233077242488" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:27:22.488-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">topic: Assembly-48</comment> <comment time="1233077246003" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:27:26.003-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">ASSEMBLY-48 Defaulting composite reference targets to internal components http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-48 Proposal is in JIRA</comment> <comment time="1233077376551" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:29:36.551-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Plamen</comment> <comment time="1233077396319" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:29:56.319-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Plamen, Simon Nash</comment> <comment time="1233077482503" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:31:22.503-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Plamen: It seems to me that this proposal is similar to the Appendix A of the SCA-JEE specification</comment> <comment time="1233077519436" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:31:59.436-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Simon Nash</comment> <comment time="1233077569158" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:32:49.158-05:00" type="c1" who="Plamen">+1 to what Simon said</comment> <comment time="1233077647911" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:34:07.911-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">simon: This is similar to the target attribute. Perhaps we could change the target attribute to point to either an internal or external entity</comment> <comment time="1233077817274" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:36:57.274-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Simon Nash, Martin C</comment> <comment time="1233077903729" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:38:23.729-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Martin C</comment> <comment time="1233078009130" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:40:09.130-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233078068716" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:41:08.716-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Martin: the use-case is fine but the proposal looks like a hack</comment> <comment time="1233078113380" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:41:53.380-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Graham Charters</comment> <comment time="1233078207716" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:43:27.716-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233078222878" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:43:42.878-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Graham Charters</comment> <comment time="1233078299077" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:44:59.077-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233078365853" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:46:05.853-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Mike: multiplicity > 1 brings in extra complexity, which is not handled in this proposal</comment> <comment time="1233078682639" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:51:22.639-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Simon Nash</comment> <comment time="1233078711580" dateTime="2009-01-27T12:51:51.580-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233079243906" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:00:43.906-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Dave: The use-case is supported already by restructuring the components and the references in the composite</comment> <comment time="1233079352862" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:02:32.862-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Rowley: would we want to support having a composite that has default capabilities encapsulated in the composite by some means? I would say yes, we do want that.</comment> <comment time="1233079395654" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:03:15.654-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Dave: I am a bit concerned about the time. The feature is non trivial from a simplicity prospective.</comment> <comment time="1233079645373" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:07:25.373-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Rowley: We could support the internal attribute only for the multiplicity is 0..1 or 1..0. In my view, these are the most common use-cases</comment> <comment time="1233079761310" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:09:21.310-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Simon: I am concerned that by introducing this feature only for the 0..1 and 1..1, we would make it inconsistent with the 1..n use-case</comment> <comment time="1233079821316" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:10:21.316-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Mike: In my view, it would be better to have the inconsistency and provide this capability for 1..1 and 0..1 than not provide this capability at all</comment> <comment time="1233079835136" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:10:35.136-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Rowley:In my view, it would be better to have the inconsistency and provide this capability for 1..1 and 0..1 than not provide this capability at all</comment> <comment time="1233080502796" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:21:42.796-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">add new attribute isOverridable to component reference</comment> <comment time="1233080550555" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:22:30.555-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">is isOverridable==true, promotion targeting replaces all targeting at the component level</comment> <comment time="1233080598464" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:23:18.464-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">if isOverridable==false, and 0..1 or 1..1, promotion implies wiredbyImpl==true</comment> <comment time="1233080626774" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:23:46.774-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">if isOverridable==false, and 0..n or 1..n, promotion targeting is additive</comment> <comment time="1233080648606" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:24:08.606-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">default is isOverridable==true</comment> <comment time="1233080658910" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:24:18.910-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Plamen</comment> <comment time="1233080712007" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:25:12.007-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">if isOverridable==true, promotion targeting replaces all targeting at the component level for all multiplicity</comment> <comment time="1233080731345" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:25:31.345-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233080748169" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:25:48.169-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Mike: could we change the attribute name to NotOverridable or NonOverridable</comment> <comment time="1233080754568" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:25:54.568-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">add new attribute nonOverridable to component reference</comment> <comment time="1233080773065" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:26:13.065-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">if nonOverridable==false, promotion targeting replaces all targeting at the component level for all multiplicity</comment> <comment time="1233080850075" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:27:30.075-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">if nonOverridable==true, and 0..1 or 1..1, promotion implies wiredbyImpl==true</comment> <comment time="1233080872057" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:27:52.057-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">if nonOverridable==true, and 0..n or 1..n, promotion targeting is additive</comment> <comment time="1233080884074" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:28:04.074-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">default is nonOverridable==false</comment> <comment time="1233080896112" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:28:16.112-05:00" type="c1" who="Michael Rowley1">If 1..1 reference has nonOverridable==false, then any promoted reference will be multiplicity 0..1</comment> <comment time="1233080924653" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:28:44.653-05:00" type="c1" who="Michael Rowley1">^ and the component has a target.</comment> <comment time="1233081075760" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:31:15.760-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Mike: I am concerned about the word" will". There are two cases we need to cover: 1) the higher level reference has a multiplicity specified 2) the higher level reference doesn't have a multiplicity specified</comment> <comment time="1233081134114" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:32:14.114-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">If 1..1 reference has nonOverridable==false, then any promoted reference will be multiplicity 0..1 by default</comment> <comment time="1233081153692" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:32:33.692-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">If 1..1 reference has nonOverridable==false, then any promoted reference MAY be multiplicity 0..1 or 1..n explicitly</comment> <comment time="1233081175583" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:32:55.583-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">If 1..1 reference has nonOverridable==false, then any promoted reference MAY be multiplicity 0..1 or 1..1 explicitly</comment> <comment time="1233081267976" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:34:27.976-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion m:simon s:rowley "accept the rules pasted in the chatroom to resolve issue 48"</comment> <comment time="1233081286493" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:34:46.493-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">resolution: motion passes w/o</comment> <comment time="1233081354581" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:35:54.581-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">(we taking a break, now)</comment> <comment time="1233081491488" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:38:11.488-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">(we are taking a break, now)</comment> <comment time="1233082245292" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:50:45.292-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">restart in 2 minutes !!!</comment> <comment time="1233082276006" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:51:16.006-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">I plan to deal with the New Issues - as we made the 66% quorum requirements</comment> <comment time="1233082442014" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:54:02.014-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">C. New Issues ASSEMBLY-104 Normative statement missing for @type and @element attributes http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-104 ASSEMBLY-103 SCA Specification is missing XSD for and Conformance statements relating to and http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-103 ASSEMBLY-102 ASM60008 is a duplicate of ASM60012, ASM60013 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-102 ASSEMBLY-101 Complete the Conformance Section http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-101 ASSEMBLY-100 Defintion of Composite Reference Multiplicity contains conflicting information http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-100</comment> <comment time="1233082509602" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:55:09.602-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">topic: Issue 100</comment> <comment time="1233082574184" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:56:14.184-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion m:Dave s:Plamen "motion to open issue 100"</comment> <comment time="1233082614052" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:56:54.052-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">resolution: motion passes w/o</comment> <comment time="1233082622023" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:57:02.023-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">topic: Issue 101</comment> <comment time="1233082674969" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:57:54.969-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion: m:Dave s:Sabin "move to open issue 101"</comment> <comment time="1233082684984" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:58:04.984-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">resolution: motion passes w/o</comment> <comment time="1233082721797" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:58:41.797-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">topic: Issue 102</comment> <comment time="1233082767502" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:59:27.502-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion: m:Dave s:Eric "move to open issue 102"</comment> <comment time="1233082785699" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:59:45.699-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">resolution: motion passes w/o</comment> <comment time="1233082798667" dateTime="2009-01-27T13:59:58.667-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">topic: Issue 103</comment> <comment time="1233082891160" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:01:31.160-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Ashok: does the policy spec have a schema for the definitions file? I don't think it has.</comment> <comment time="1233082977034" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:02:57.034-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion: m:Dave s:Sabin "move to open issue 103"</comment> <comment time="1233082997313" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:03:17.313-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">resolution: motion passes w/o</comment> <comment time="1233083033966" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:03:53.966-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">topic: Issue 104</comment> <comment time="1233083074924" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:04:34.924-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion: m:Dave s:Sabin "move to open issue 104"</comment> <comment time="1233083097146" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:04:57.146-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">resolution: motion passes w/o</comment> <comment time="1233083134620" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:05:34.620-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">topic: ASSEMBLY-34 Define error handling</comment> <comment time="1233083147098" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:05:47.098-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-34 Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200901/msg00061.html Comment: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200901/msg00063.html</comment> <comment time="1233083502960" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:11:42.960-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Bryan Aupperle</comment> <comment time="1233083514176" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:11:54.176-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233083572159" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:12:52.159-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Bryan: the Bindings TC has decided to use the term "raise" instead of "report"</comment> <comment time="1233084270383" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:24:30.383-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Mike: (after going through the proposed changes): with these sections in mind, does it make sense to use the term "report" instead of "raise"?</comment> <comment time="1233084921209" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:35:21.209-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">action: Mike "look at the wording of ASM12007"</comment> <comment time="1233085022785" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:37:02.785-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">action: Mike: change "report an exception" to "report an error" (line 3979)</comment> <comment time="1233085387350" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:43:07.350-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Dave: consistency is important within a particular document. Across documents, it is less important in my view</comment> <comment time="1233085424994" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:43:44.994-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Mike: this proposal provides consistency in the Assembly spec</comment> <comment time="1233085478631" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:44:38.631-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Ashok: I would prefer "raise". Do folks have any objections for using "raise" than "report"? That would also make it consistent with the Bindings TC</comment> <comment time="1233085512339" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:45:12.339-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">action: Mike: replace the word "report" with "raise" in the proposal</comment> <comment time="1233085740477" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:49:00.477-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Dave: I have suggestion for making a change to 13.1.1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: the sentence is too long, we should shorten it.</comment> <comment time="1233085833962" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:50:33.962-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Dave: suggestion: "may prevent deployment" to be replaced with "should report an error" (13.1.1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence)</comment> <comment time="1233085937170" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:52:17.170-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Dave: Suggestion: 4091, the last sentence: spelling error: proocess</comment> <comment time="1233086253986" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:57:33.986-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Dave: suggestion to fix the following: 13.1.2, 3rd paragraph: we need to change "to the component that is attempting some activity".</comment> <comment time="1233086381469" dateTime="2009-01-27T14:59:41.469-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Martin: Suggestion to fix 13.1.2, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: "An SCA runtime can detect problems at runtime". I am struggling with whether this should be normative.</comment> <comment time="1233086458570" dateTime="2009-01-27T15:00:58.570-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Mike: We'll leave this issue for resolution for some other day</comment> <comment time="1233086479160" dateTime="2009-01-27T15:01:19.160-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">(break for lunch)</comment> <comment time="1233090208913" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:03:28.913-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">starting again</comment> <comment time="1233090337217" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:05:37.217-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">ASSEMBLY-90 Clarify @promote in the context of composite includes http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-90 Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200901/msg00016.html</comment> <comment time="1233090371036" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:06:11.036-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">See sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd01-rev3_Issue90_3.doc</comment> <comment time="1233090389242" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:06:29.242-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">or rather</comment> <comment time="1233090397073" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:06:37.073-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd01-rev3_Issue90_3.pdf ;-)</comment> <comment time="1233091721208" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:28:41.208-05:00" type="c1" who="Bryan Aupperle">I think there is also some added text at lines 1782-1786</comment> <comment time="1233091873387" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:31:13.387-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">"<include/> processing MUST take place before the processing of the @promote attribute is performed."</comment> <comment time="1233092004038" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:33:24.038-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Mike: The above text would be a replacement for all the words in the proposal in both sections 6.1 and 6.2</comment> <comment time="1233092133651" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:35:33.651-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">action: Mike: to review section 6.4 for missing normative statements</comment> <comment time="1233092192548" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:36:32.548-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">For lines 1782 - 1786:</comment> <comment time="1233092234494" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:37:14.494-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">"<include/> processing MUST take place before the @source and @target attributes are resolved."</comment> <comment time="1233092343328" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:39:03.328-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion: m:Mike s:Simon "to resolve to resolve issue 90 with the words that we've put in the chatroom"</comment> <comment time="1233092352339" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:39:12.339-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">"<include/> processing MUST take place before the processing of the @promote attribute is performed."</comment> <comment time="1233092396452" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:39:56.452-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion: m:Mike s:Simon "to resolve issue 90 with the words that we've put in the chatroom"</comment> <comment time="1233092484968" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:41:24.968-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">to be added after line 1321 and after line 1434</comment> <comment time="1233092487985" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:41:27.985-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">and...</comment> <comment time="1233092497085" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:41:37.085-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">"<include/> processing MUST take place before the @source and @target attributes are resolved."</comment> <comment time="1233092521909" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:42:01.909-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">to be added after line 1811</comment> <comment time="1233092541788" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:42:21.788-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">...all line numbers refer to sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02.pdf</comment> <comment time="1233092770775" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:46:10.775-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">(first 2 places are the end of the description of @promote)</comment> <comment time="1233092947877" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:49:07.877-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">line numbers should be (CD-02 on OASIS site): 1318, 1430, 1802</comment> <comment time="1233093009481" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:50:09.481-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">resolution: motion passes w/o</comment> <comment time="1233093141561" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:52:21.561-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">ASSEMBLY-97 Need Assembly level definition for "AllowsPassByReference" http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-97 ** No proposal **</comment> <comment time="1233093339901" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:55:39.901-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Simon: there is a corresponding issue in the Java TC. One possibility would be to delay the discussion until the issue in the Java TC is resolved</comment> <comment time="1233093531927" dateTime="2009-01-27T16:58:51.927-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Mike: We have a public review in 3 weeks. I am minded to say to defer it or close it with no action.</comment> <comment time="1233093641201" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:00:41.201-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion: m:Dave s:Simon "Close issue 97 with no action"</comment> <comment time="1233093673547" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:01:13.547-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">resolution: motion passes w/o</comment> <comment time="1233093698170" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:01:38.170-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">ASSEMBLY-64 Specification inconsistent on whether a default value for Property on a Constraining Type is allowed or not http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-64 Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200901/msg00090.html</comment> <comment time="1233094581903" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:16:21.903-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Ashok: Why are we allowing intents in the ConstrainingType?</comment> <comment time="1233094754430" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:19:14.430-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Martin: We do not need to have a separate assertion for this issue. The schema already enforces it.</comment> <comment time="1233095326892" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:28:46.892-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Proposal:</comment> <comment time="1233095331497" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:28:51.497-05:00" type="c1" who="Plamen">hard to follow but we are trying:)</comment> <comment time="1233095361366" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:29:21.366-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Use the proposal contained in sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02_Issue64.doc with the follwing changes:</comment> <comment time="1233095397098" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:29:57.098-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">1. Change the new normative statement [ASM70008] into a simple non-normative statement of fact</comment> <comment time="1233095460770" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:31:00.770-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">2. Remove the @requires attribute from constrainingType and from <service/>, <reference/> and <property/> subelements of constrainingType (in pseudoschema and in XSD)</comment> <comment time="1233095495543" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:31:35.543-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">3. Remove the last but one paragraph in section 7 - the one containing [ASM70007]</comment> <comment time="1233095526281" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:32:06.281-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Motion: Resolve Issue 64 with the proposal written as above</comment> <comment time="1233095609512" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:33:29.512-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Motion: m:Mike s:Dave "Resolve Issue 64 with the proposal written as above"</comment> <comment time="1233095635415" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:33:55.415-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">resolution: motion passes w/o</comment> <comment time="1233095645934" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:34:05.934-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">ASSEMBLY-46 Dynamic Aspects of the Domain not adequately described in the Assembly Specification http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-46 ** No proposal **</comment> <comment time="1233095912860" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:38:32.860-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion: m:Mike s:Ashok "close the issue 46 with no action"</comment> <comment time="1233095929103" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:38:49.103-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">resolution: motion passes w/o</comment> <comment time="1233095942729" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:39:02.729-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">ASSEMBLY-80 Create an Event Processing Model for SCA http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-80 ** No proposal **</comment> <comment time="1233096213941" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:43:33.941-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Mike: we'll leave this issue hang</comment> <comment time="1233096280460" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:44:40.460-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">We are taking a 15 min break...</comment> <comment time="1233096332565" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:45:32.565-05:00" type="c1" who="Dale Moberg">Resuming when?</comment> <comment time="1233096337250" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:45:37.250-05:00" type="c1" who="Dale Moberg">ok thanks</comment> <comment time="1233096342385" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:45:42.385-05:00" type="c1" who="Plamen">i guess I'll be online after the break</comment> <comment time="1233096385259" dateTime="2009-01-27T17:46:25.259-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">We are resuming at 3 PM PST</comment> <comment time="1233097215049" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:00:15.049-05:00" type="c1" who="Plamen">Mike, with regards to resolution of Assembly-64 and my action Item to prepare test assertions for Chapter 7, which to be incorporated into the test assertion document. When I'm doing my AI I'll take into account the resolution of the issues. Any objections?</comment> <comment time="1233097457931" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:04:17.931-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Yes Plamen, go ahead and do it that way</comment> <comment time="1233097508737" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:05:08.737-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">ASSEMBLY-100 Defintion of Composite Reference Multiplicity contains conflicting information http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-100</comment> <comment time="1233097513921" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:05:13.921-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Proposal in JIRA</comment> <comment time="1233097627151" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:07:07.151-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Change this line:</comment> <comment time="1233097628390" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:07:08.390-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">multiplicity : 0..1|1..1|0..n|1..n (0..1) - Defines the number of wires that can connect the reference to target services.</comment> <comment time="1233097635453" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:07:15.453-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">to look like this:</comment> <comment time="1233097659887" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:07:39.887-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">multiplicity (0..1) : One of: 0..1|1..1|0..n|1..n - Defines the number of wires that can connect the reference to target services.</comment> <comment time="1233097776453" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:09:36.453-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Dave suggestes:</comment> <comment time="1233097817699" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:10:17.699-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">multiplicity (0..1) - Defines the number of wires that can connect the reference to target services.</comment> <comment time="1233098006459" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:13:26.459-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Proposal:</comment> <comment time="1233098014520" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:13:34.520-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">multiplicity (0..1) - Defines the number of wires that can connect the reference to target services.</comment> <comment time="1233098046406" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:14:06.406-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">When present, the multiplicity can have one of the following values o 0..1 - zero or one wire can have the reference as a source o 1..1 - one wire can have the reference as a source o 0..n - zero or more wires can have the reference as a source o 1..n - one or more wires can have the reference as a source The default value for the @multiplicity attribute is 1..1. The value specified for the multiplicity attribute of a composite reference MUST be compatible with the multiplicity specified on each of the promoted component references, i.e. the multiplicity has to be equal or further restrict. So multiplicity 0..1 can be used where the promoted component reference has multiplicity 0..n, multiplicity 1..1 can be used where the promoted component reference has multiplicity 0..n or 1..n and multiplicity 1..n can be used where the promoted component reference has multiplicity 0..n., However, a composite reference of multiplicity 0..n or 1..n cannot be used to promote a component reference of multiplicity 0..1 or 1..1 respectively. [ASM60011]</comment> <comment time="1233098117002" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:15:17.002-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion: m:Mike s:Dave "resolve the issue 100 using the proposal available in the chatroom"</comment> <comment time="1233098141835" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:15:41.835-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">resolution: motion passes w/o</comment> <comment time="1233098157459" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:15:57.459-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">ASSEMBLY-102 ASM60008 is a duplicate of ASM60012, ASM60013 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-102</comment> <comment time="1233098235336" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:17:15.336-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">ASSEMBLY-103 SCA Specification is missing XSD for and Conformance statements relating to and http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-103</comment> <comment time="1233098238043" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:17:18.043-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Martin: Since Simon is not on the call anymore, let's skip it</comment> <comment time="1233098259011" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:17:39.011-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">(Martin's comment was for issue 102)</comment> <comment time="1233099168825" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:32:48.825-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Martin: I think we should have a more general statement that would say something along the lines of... "SCA runtimes must reject artifacts that are not valid against the schemas defined by the SCA Assembly specification"</comment> <comment time="1233099753974" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:42:33.974-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">An SCA runtime MUST read the contents of definitions.xml files contained within the Domain and MUST make available to the Domain all the artifacts contained within the files.</comment> <comment time="1233099862739" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:44:22.739-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">An SCA runtime MUST make available to the Domain all the artifacts contained within the definitions.xml files in the Domain.</comment> <comment time="1233099874207" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:44:34.207-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">[ASM10002]</comment> <comment time="1233100236532" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:50:36.532-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">An SCA runtime MUST read the contents of the META-INF/sca-contribution.xml and META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml files and make available the <import/> and <export/> elements for the resolution of artifacts through the SCA artifact resolution process and it SHOULD deploy the composites in <composite/> elements into the Domain.</comment> <comment time="1233100303062" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:51:43.062-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">An SCA runtime MUST read the contents of the META-INF/sca-contribution.xml and META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml files and make available the <import/> and <export/> elements for the resolution of artifacts through the SCA artifact resolution process and it MAY deploy the composites in <composite/> elements into the Domain.</comment> <comment time="1233100330003" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:52:10.003-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">An SCA runtime MUST read the contents of the META-INF/sca-contribution.xml and META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml files and make available the <import/> and <export/> elements for the resolution of artifacts through the SCA artifact resolution process and it MAY deploy the composites in <deployable/> elements into the Domain.</comment> <comment time="1233100340712" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:52:20.712-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">[ASM12026]</comment> <comment time="1233100391948" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:53:11.948-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Proposal:</comment> <comment time="1233100444222" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:54:04.222-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Resolve Issue 103 using the changes described in sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1.doc with the following changes:</comment> <comment time="1233100472942" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:54:32.942-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">1) Replace the 1st sentence of the new 2nd paragrpah of section 10 with:</comment> <comment time="1233100485948" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:54:45.948-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">An SCA runtime MUST make available to the Domain all the artifacts contained within the definitions.xml files in the Domain.[ASM10002]</comment> <comment time="1233100521610" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:55:21.610-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">2) Replace the 1st sentence of the new 2nd paragraph of section 12.2.2 with:</comment> <comment time="1233100535725" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:55:35.725-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">An SCA runtime MUST read the contents of the META-INF/sca-contribution.xml and META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml files and make available the <import/> and <export/> elements for the resolution of artifacts through the SCA artifact resolution process and it MAY deploy the composites in <deployable/> elements into the Domain. [ASM12026]</comment> <comment time="1233100545435" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:55:45.435-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Mike Edwards so moves....</comment> <comment time="1233100799745" dateTime="2009-01-27T18:59:59.745-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">An SCA runtime MUST make the <import/> and <export/> elements found in the META-INF/sca-contribution.xml and META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml files available for the resolution of artifacts through the SCA srtifact resolution process. [ASM12026]</comment> <comment time="1233100850731" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:00:50.731-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">An SCA runtime MAY deploy the composites in <deployable/> elements found in the META-INF/sca-contribution.xml and META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml files. [ASM12029]</comment> <comment time="1233100914503" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:01:54.503-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Proposal: Mike Edwards: Resolve Issue 103 using the changes described in sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1.doc with the following changes: Mike Edwards: 1) Replace the 1st sentence of the new 2nd paragrpah of section 10 with: Mike Edwards: An SCA runtime MUST make available to the Domain all the artifacts contained within the definitions.xml files in the Domain.[ASM10002] Mike Edwards: 2) Replace the 1st sentence of the new 2nd paragraph of section 12.2.2 with:</comment> <comment time="1233100918509" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:01:58.509-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">An SCA runtime MUST make the <import/> and <export/> elements found in the META-INF/sca-contribution.xml and META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml files available for the resolution of artifacts through the SCA srtifact resolution process. [ASM12026] Mike Edwards: An SCA runtime MAY deploy the composites in <deployable/> elements found in the META-INF/sca-contribution.xml and META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml files. [ASM12029]</comment> <comment time="1233101065563" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:04:25.563-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Proposal: Mike Edwards: Resolve Issue 103 using the changes described in sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1.doc with the following changes: Mike Edwards: 1) Replace the 1st sentence of the new 2nd paragrpah of section 10 with: Mike Edwards: An SCA runtime MUST make available to the Domain all the artifacts contained within the definitions.xml files in the Domain.[ASM10002] Mike Edwards: 2) Replace the 1st sentence of the new 2nd paragraph of section 12.2.2 with: Mike Edwards: An SCA runtime MUST make the <import/> and <export/> elements found in the META-INF/sca-contribution.xml and META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml files available for the SCA srtifact resolution process. [ASM12026] Mike Edwards: An SCA runtime MAY deploy the composites in <deployable/> elements found in the META-INF/sca-contribution.xml and META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml files. [ASM12029]</comment> <comment time="1233101144929" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:05:44.929-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Mike E moves to resolve Issue 103 using this proposal</comment> <comment time="1233101193797" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:06:33.797-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion: m:Mike s:Dave "resolve issue 103 with the proposal above"</comment> <comment time="1233101211678" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:06:51.678-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">resolution: motion passes w/o</comment> <comment time="1233101229818" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:07:09.818-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">ASSEMBLY-104 Normative statement missing for @type and @element attributes http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-104</comment> <comment time="1233101305029" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:08:25.029-05:00" type="c1" who="Plamen">My phone connection just dropped, I'm leaving you. till next phone call</comment> <comment time="1233101564983" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:12:44.983-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">sleep well...dont dream of sca</comment> <comment time="1233101569648" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:12:49.648-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Bye Plamen - you deserve a medal for staying with us</comment> <comment time="1233101677913" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:14:37.913-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Resolve Issue 104 using the text in sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02_Issue104.pdf, with the addition of "componentType", "component" and "composite" in front of the word "property" in the 3 added normative statements respectively.</comment> <comment time="1233101715253" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:15:15.253-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">motion: m:Mike s:Eric "Resolve Issue 104 using the text in sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02_Issue104.pdf, with the addition of "componentType", "component" and "composite" in front of the word "property" in the 3 added normative statements respectively."</comment> <comment time="1233101735532" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:15:35.532-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">resolution: motion passes w/o</comment> <comment time="1233101778167" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:16:18.167-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">ASSEMBLY-101 Complete the Conformance Section http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-101</comment> <comment time="1233104243980" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:57:23.980-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">...brainstorming session...we haven't taken any decision</comment> <comment time="1233104271351" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:57:51.351-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">topic: Work Plan for Specification - towards Public Review Draft & Review Process</comment> <comment time="1233104327961" dateTime="2009-01-27T19:58:47.961-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">We have 3 issues outstanding: two were deferred for Anish to look at and than there is the Conformance Section issue</comment> <comment time="1233104628562" dateTime="2009-01-27T20:03:48.562-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">Reminder: We expect to do a vote for PR on 26th of Feb</comment> <comment time="1233104643416" dateTime="2009-01-27T20:04:03.416-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">s/26/24/</comment> <comment time="1233105014712" dateTime="2009-01-27T20:10:14.712-05:00" type="c1" who="sabin">AOB</comment> </room>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]