Re: [sca-assembly] FW: [sca-assembly-comment] Microsoft's response for Public Review of SCA Assembly Model v1.1 - 15 day review

[Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>]

On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Estefan, Jeff A (3100) wrote:

> Mike and Martin (and SCA-Assembly TC Members),
>
> It is unacceptable in my opinion that this issue (Issue #132) and  
> its cousin (Issue #149) simply be closed with a resolution of "No  
> Action."  The points made by Michael Champion of Microsoft and by  
> Philipp Knoradi of Siemens are very valid ones and we should not  
> take an OASIS-only parochial perspective on these closely related  
> issues.  Included below is the Don Ferguson response to Jim Marino  
> on this topic from back in June 2009 who's words in his last  
> sentence should not be taken lightly.

hi jeff,
  I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't believe their  
points are valid and it is unacceptable in my opinion that we allow a  
vendor to claim they have built a conformant SCA product without  
providing a standardized way for someone to actually write and  
implement a composite application.

The reason I voted to close no action was that after several months of  
conversation, I had yet to hear a concrete proposal that folks were  
willing to entertain that would do this.

Do you have a concrete proposal for how we can provide assurances that  
when someone implements an SCA application that they have a way to  
implement it in a standard way without actually standardizing the  
implementation type(s)?
If you simply want to resurrect the "remove the requirement solution",  
I see no benefit in repeating the same arguments once again and would  
vote against re-opening the issue.

cheers,
   jeff


>
> -----------------
>
> From: Ferguson, Donald F [mailto:Donald.Ferguson@ca.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:40 AM
> To: Jim Marino; OASIS Assembly; sca-assembly-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 132] Rebuttal: Against the use of  
> portability and functions as reasons for requiring one of the  
> existing 4 languages
>
> I do not see any reason to believe that we cannot define a  
> conformance test for SCA Assembly. If we are able to do so, we would  
> not need to require support for the core languages. I assert that 1)  
> We should not assume that we cannot define a compliance test until  
> we have tried. 2) An assembly spec that places requirements on  
> internal implementation languages is flawed.
>
> Finally, I was present in IBM when we started work on SCA. Language  
> independence and encapsulation of implementation was an explicit  
> objective.  The IBM architecture leadership would have vetoed any  
> assembly spec with this requirement.
>
> Dr. Donald F. Ferguson
> Distinguished Engineer
> Corporate Senior Vice President
> Chief Architect Products and Technology
> donald.ferguson@ca.com
> donff2@aol.com
> www.donald-ferguson.net/blog
>
> -----------------
>
> If we want to insure SCA-Assembly portability to the maximum extent  
> possible, is it not possible to create a Java EE-like Compatibility  
> Test Suite (CTS) for SCA runtimes?  If such an effort is too  
> daunting to accomplish in the next several months, then we can't  
> simply punt on these very important points regarding implementation  
> neutrality when it comes to the SCA-Assembly spec.  We must either  
> remove the conformance clause that mandates use of one of the  
> current SCA implementation languages, or consider some acceptable  
> variant to that language, e.g., Sanjay's proposal.
>
> Recognizing that it requires a 2/3rds supermajority to re-open a  
> closed issue, I would still like to propose that Issues #132 and  
> #149 be reopened with acceptable resolution to the concerned  
> community other than "No Action."
>
> Regards...
>
> - Jeff, NASA/JPL
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>

--
Jeff Mischkinsky			          		jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware 				+1(650)506-1975
	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065