Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution

[Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>]

Martin Chapman wrote:
> With a strict chair hat on, we really need to look at the broader 
> schedule here.
> 
> In order to progress to Committee Specification we need  at least two 
> implementations passing the tests and showing some kind of interop.
> 
> As a Chair I have no idea when two implementations will surface to meet 
> this criteria.
> 
>  
> 
> If they surface soon I share the schedule concerns expressed by others.
> 
> If two implementations are not on the near horizon, then I see no 
> problem in discussing resolutions to issue-80.
> 
Let's say the specs are complete at time T.  Two implementations will
be available at time T+n, where n depends on the amount of function in
the specs and the maturity/stability of that function (i.e., whether
implementers have been able to use previous spec drafts to get a
head start on their implementations).

If we take the current 1.1 drafts forward without adding events,
I think n will be quite small because the function in the current drafts
is now mature and has been largely stable for a while.

If we add a large new chunk of functionality now, it will push out T.
It will also increase n, because implementers will have had less time
to absorb/prototype/start developing the new functionality.  So not
only will the spec completion date be delayed, but there will also
be a longer gap (after that later date) before two compliant and
interoperable implementations become available.

   Simon

>  
> 
> Martin.
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Mike Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* 23 June 2009 10:13
> *To:* OASIS Assembly
> *Subject:* Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Anish,
> 
> Thank you for your proposal.
> 
> Can I ask for your assessment on the likely impact of this approach to 
> the schedule of completion of the
> OASIS SCA Assembly Model specification V1.1 and also for your assessment 
> of the likely impact to the
> schedules of the other affected specifications?
> 
> 
> Yours,  Mike.
> 
> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
> Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
> 
> From:
> 
> 	
> 
> Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
> 
> To:
> 
> 	
> 
> OASIS Assembly <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> Date:
> 
> 	
> 
> 22/06/2009 18:52
> 
> Subject:
> 
> 	
> 
> [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to propose that we use the contribution at [2], as a basis
> for a directional resolution for issue 80 [1]. Specifically, we
> introduce the concepts of events, event types, producers, consumers,
> channels; and the changes these concepts make to the existing
> composite/component/componentType/constrainingType constructs.
> 
> If this directional resolution is accepted, I suggest that an inlined
> document (with change marks) be produced that provides a merge between
> [2] and the existing latest version of SCA Assembly. This would then
> serve as a basis for the resolution of issue 80.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-80
> [2]
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/32379/SCA_Assembly_Extensions_for_Event_Processing_and_PubSub_V1_0.pdf
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>  
> 
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>