OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-assembly message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 149] Resolution status - and a DirectionalProposal



Philipp,

The point I'm trying to get at with the statement you picked out is that we need that:

1) It MUST be the case that a document exists for the Implementation Type and that a version of the Test Suite also exists

2) It MUST also be the case that the Implementation Type document and the Test Suite version are "freely available"

- the document should be available publicly with a license that permits anyone to obtain a copy ("equivalent" terms to
those applying to OASIS public specifications, but not requiring the document to be published by OASIS and not requiring
it to use OASIS terms)

- the Test Suite should be available freely - and in my thinking that would mean available from a public location under
an accepted open source license.  Again, does not have to be available from OASIS and we can be flexible about the
license, but what I don't want to see is the ability for a vendor to tie the Test Suite to the purchase of a product, or to
place restrictive terms on its availability.  I think that the base test suite is really a piece of open source and that this
modified implementation specific version of the test suite is simply building on that base.  
This does NOT imply that a commercial company has to make their SCA runtime freely available, of course - so
to actually RUN the test suite it may well be necessary to buy a license for the runtime.  However, "the court of public
opinion" which is what is really being used to police the conformance here, requires that the test suite can be
inspected freely, even without being able to run it - for example, a company make make short cuts in its implementation
of the test suite, which should be open to comment.



I don't know if any of this is really going to work - how can an OASIS specification make demands of this kind and have
any expectation that they will be honoured?  - I suspect that we are blazing a trail into new territory here as I am not aware
of a standards TC having made requirements of this kind before...

All comments welcome

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: "Konradi, Philipp" <philipp.konradi@siemens.com>
To: Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "OASIS Assembly" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 14/10/2009 15:51
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 149] Resolution status - and a Directional Proposal





I’m of course in favor of Approach B :-) Approach A is too restrictive IMHO for the reason’s mentioned in JIRA issue 149.
 
> A difficulty with this approach is having control over the availability of these necessary document and testcase artifacts - legally, how can it be controlled?
Actually I’m not sure whether we have really an additional difficulty here. I mean, is it really important that *OASIS* is in control over the availability of these documents?
I think that the *users* of an SCA Runtime validate its conformance to the spec and execute the Test Suite if they want to (when suspecting deviation for example). Whether they got the impl. type spec + impl. type specific part of test cases from OASIS or from another publicly available place is not essential. But maybe I’m missing something?!
 
Yours,
Philipp
 
 
From: Mike Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 5:02 PM
To:
Konradi, Philipp; OASIS Assembly
Subject:
Re: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 149] Resolution status - and a Directional Proposal

 

Folks,


It is time for the Assembly TC to move to resolve issues 149 and 132.


Both of these issues relate to the implementation type support required by the Assembly specification.


I believe that there are two alternative directions in which these issues can be resolved, and we should start

by making a directional resolution which decides between them:



Approach A.


Stick with the requirement that an SCA runtime that claims conformance to the SCA Assembly specification must implement

at least one SCA implementation type that is formally standardized by an OASIS TC, and that the SCA runtime must pass

the version of the SCA Assembly Test Suite that uses that implementation type as its base.


The version of the SCA Assembly Test Suite for any implementation type will be freely available from OASIS.


The implementation type will have a formal document that describes its relationship to the SCA Assembly model and this

will be published from OASIS.



Approach B.


Relax the requirement  for support of implementation types that an SCA runtime must support when it claims conformance to the SCA Assembly specification.


Change to a model where the requirement is that the SCA runtime must support an implementation type that meets the following requirements:


1. There is a publicly available document that describes the implementation type and which relates aspects of the implementation type artifact(s) to the SCA Assembly

specification - in particular, it defines the component type of an arbitrary implementation type artifact and it describes how an implementation type artifact is

instantiated when it forms the implementation of a component within an SCA composite.


2. There is a publicly available version of the SCA Assembly test suite that uses the implementation type for its low level implementation artifacts


This approach will requires a document that describes what is required for items 1) and 2).


A difficulty with this approach is having control over the availability of these necessary document and testcase artifacts - legally, how can it be controlled?




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: "Konradi, Philipp" <philipp.konradi@siemens.com>
To: "OASIS Assembly" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 05/10/2009 17:11
Subject: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 149] Resolution status?

 







Hi all,

some discussions related to Siemens concerns on impl. language independence (http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-149) took already place and I was wondering about the current status.

Martin proposed in [1] to relax conformance requirements to some extent. This proposal seemed to receive broad acceptance on the mailing list.

Further Jim and Mike were discussing a solution proposal to increase language-independence in the Assembly test suite complementing Martin’s proposal nicely from the testing perspective.

Can somebody tell about the status here? Mike? What further work is required to proceed it to an official proposal so that concerns raised in http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-149 can finally be resolved?

I’d be glad to help here out.

Regards,

Philipp

[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200907/msg00045.html

With best regards,

Philipp Konradi

Siemens AG

Corporate Technology

CT SE 22

Otto-Hahn-Ring 6

81739 Munich, Germany

Tel.: +49 (89) 636-53802

Fax: +49 (89) 636-45450

mailto:philipp.konradi@siemens.com

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Gerhard Cromme; Managing Board: Peter Loescher, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Wolfgang Dehen, Heinrich Hiesinger, Joe Kaeser, Barbara Kux, Hermann Requardt, Siegfried Russwurm, Peter Y. Solmssen; Registered offices: Berlin and Munich, Germany; Commercial registries: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, Munich, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 23691322

 






 

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











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








[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]