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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bindings message

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


Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Groups - sca-binding-jca-1.1-spec-cd02-rev2-issue75.docuploaded



Eric,

Responses below inline.  I should note that I believe these comments apply equally to the proposals for issue 74 and 75, and to binding.ws-cd02-rev2, with the exception of the comment regarding binding.jca element following the schema.  binding.ws already has:

The <binding.ws> element MUST conform to the XML schema defined in sca-binding-webservice.xsd. [BWS20024]

So I believe we should add a similar statement as part of the resolution of issues 74 and 75.

Simon Holdsworth
STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK
Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898
Internet - Simon_Holdsworth@uk.ibm.com


Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com> wrote on 11/06/2009 01:06:11:

> Minor feedback items:
>
> In the JCA specification, there are no references to "binding xml
> document" outside of the conformance section.  So this sentence in
> section 7.1:

The term is defined in section 7.1, so I'm not sure why there would need to be a reference anywhere else to the binding xml document.
 
> "An SCA JCA Binding XML document MUST be a conformant SCA Composite
> Document, SCA Definitions Document or a SCA ComponentType Document, as
> defined by the SCA Assembly specification [SCA-Assembly], and MUST
> comply with all the applicable requirements specified in this
> specification."
>
> seems like it is confusing matters by adding that second "MUST"
> statement. Why not:
> "An SCA JCA Binding XML document MUST be a conformant SCA Composite
> Document, SCA Definitions Document or a SCA ComponentType Document, as
> defined by the SCA Assembly specification [SCA-Assembly]."?

Beacuse we are saying that the XML document must comply with all the requirements place on it by all normative statements in the document that refer to elements in the binding.jca schema.  Perhaps that would be clearer?

e.g.

".. and MUST comply with all the requirements that apply to elements in the binding.jca schema listed in this specification."

> I suspect the reason is that we're expecting conformance to the XML
> Schema, as well as the semantics of the elements when those can be
> identified from more semantically rich XML analysis tools, like
> Schematron.  For example, BJC20015 has a syntactic representation that
> can be identified from context of the XML document itself, whereas
> BJC0014 cannot be determined from the XML document itself, except by the
> runtime.

> Seems like, if we want to be pendantic, the problem is that BJC20015 has
> a conformance target of the document, and BJC20014 has a conformance
> target of the runtime, and we've not written it that way.


So I agreed that BJC20015 applies to the binding xml document, and that BJC20014 can only be determined at runtime, and that looks to me how they are written - maybe I'm confused as to what the "it" is at the end of your statement ...?

Are you proposing that we prefix all such conformance statements with "Within a binding xml document..." ?

 If we do
> that, the wording of 7.2 already notes that section 7.1 must be
> satisfied, and we've clarified what we mean by the otherwise hopelessly
> vague "all applicable requirements specified in this specification."
>
> In any case, "requirements specified in this specification" is awkward.
> Why not "requirements specified herein"?

I'm open to suggestions to improve the wording.

> Further, it turns out that we don't actually state as a MUST requirement
> anywhere that the binding.jca element MUST conform to the schema.  So
> perhaps we need to state that explicitly?

Yes we should.  binding.ws already does that.

> Looking at the JMS spec next.
>
> -Eric.
>
> simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com wrote:
> > Proposed resolution to issue bindings-75
> >
> >  -- Mr. Simon Holdsworth
> >
> > The document named sca-binding-jca-1.1-spec-cd02-rev2-issue75.doc has been
> > submitted by Mr. Simon Holdsworth to the OASIS Service Component
> > Architecture / Bindings (SCA-Bindings) TC document repository.
> >
> > Document Description:
> >
> >
> > View Document Details:
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=32853
> >
> > Download Document:  
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32853/sca-
> binding-jca-1.1-spec-cd02-rev2-issue75.doc
> >
> >
> > PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email application
> > may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copyand paste
> > the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
> >
> > -OASIS Open Administration
> >  
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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








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