Minutes
agenda bashing
approval of 2008-01-10 minutes
Minutes of Jan 10, 2008: approved
AI review
Action item #17 It is issue 38 in the Assembly TC. Done
OpenCSA Liaison Subcommittees recommendation for defining conformance targets and use of RFC 2119 keywords
<Sanjay>
LSC recommendation:
<Sanjay>
Conformance targets can be categorized into
1) document artifacts (or constructs within them) that can be checked statically.
2) SCA runtimes, which we may require to exhibit certain behaviors.
We recommend that each TC write its specifications to:
1. Reword the specifications using RFC 2119 keywords.
2. For each appearance of a 2119 keyword, specify the document, construct or runtime behavior that is being constrained.
MikeE:
motion to move with the recommendation
approval of latest working drafts
<anish>
by approval, u mean accepting it as a CD, right?
MichaelR:
Motion to accept WD #5 as CD
no discussion on the motion
Dieter:
Rename the document to CD
Issue #2
Anish:
There are 4 sub-issues:
1) how/where the CT side file is found/located
2) extend the /componentType/service and componentType/reference syntax
to include partnerlinks (providing the ability to override defaults)
3) compatibility between CT side file and introspected CT. This is more
of an assembly issue, but we need to agree on how defaults are treated.
4) Allow the same info to be specified in a side file as well as
inlined. This would require new BPEL extensions for service/refs a la
multirefs and properties.
MichaelR:
Multiple side files is not at issus. It could be restricted by saying that there must be exactlly one
MichaelR:
Regarding #2: we probably do not want to have PLs in component type
MichaelR:
Regarding #3: This is an assembly issue.
MichaelR:
Regarding #4: agree to address it
Sanjay:
Regarding #1: Issue #14 inlcudes this aspect
Sanjay:
correction, Regarding #4: Issue #14 includes this aspect
Action: Anish to open a new issue for #2
<Sanjay>
Michael Rowley's proposal:
<Sanjay>
Michael Rowley wrote:
>
> The assembly spec currently says: "The location of the component type
> file depends on the type of the component implementation: it is
> described in the respective client and implementation model
> specification for the implementation type."
>
> In my opinion, the SCA BPEL spec should define _how_ to find a component
> type side file for a BPEL process, rather than _where_ to find them.
> This is based on the fact that we don't typically use locations to refer
> to XML definitions. <implementation.bpel> and
> <implementation.componentType> both refer to their implementations by
> QName, not by a location.
>
> Therefore, I think that we should say that SCA finds the ComponentType
> for a BPEL process named "foo:bar" by finding any ComponentType document
> that has <implementation.bpel qname="foo:bar">, wherever it might be
> within the contribution.
>
<Michael Rowley>
If <implementation.bpel> is not present, then the component type has to have a contribution URI that is identical to the contribution
URI of the process, except that the extension has to be changed to ".componentType".
<Alex Yiu>
+1 to Michael's latest suggestion
<Alex Yiu>
question: where to get the latest XSD file for componentType definition?
<Mike Edwards>
this seems over complex to me
<Mike Edwards>
I dont see a good benefit
<Michael Rowley>
I agree -- <implementation.bpel> should just be required.
<anish>
this would simplify this, but i'm still concerned about the portability issue
<Mike Edwards>
and "portability of skills" matters too
<Dieter Koenig>
requiring <implementation.bpel> sounds good to me
<Michael Rowley>
SCA finds the ComponentType for a BPEL process named "foo:bar" by finding any ComponentType document that has <implementation.bpel
qname="foo:bar">, wherever it might be within the contribution. While the assembly specification allows <implementation.bpel>
to be absent, for SCA BPEL, the component type MUST include an <implementation.bpel> element.
<Mike Edwards>
This looks more complex
MichaelR:
Motion to accept this as resolution for issue #2
<Martin C>
is it really a MUST
anish:
Still concerned with the portability issue
<Dieter Koenig>
replace <implementation.bpel qname="foo:bar"> by <implementation.bpel process="foo:bar">
The discussion about issue #2 to be continued.
Sanjay:
Any further discussion on the motion
<Mike Edwards>
at the moment I'd vote against
MichaelR:
Move to table the motion
<Mike Edwards>
+1 to table
Sanjay:
Next week is Policy TC f2f. Do you want to cancel next week's concall?
Schreiber diagnostics output
[Delete this section before publishing the minutes]
statistics: Schreiber found 176 input lines
edits: Schreiber found the following text-edit commands:
edits: Line 202: Michael Rowley: s/except/of the process, except/
edits: Line 218: anish: s/by/about/
edits: Line 228: anish: s/CA finds/SCA finds/
citation-detection-irc1: Line 16: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 24: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 27: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 38: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 47: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'a) Issue 2 http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 48: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'TITLE'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 49: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'SUBMITTED BY'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 50: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'Email thread'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 51: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 52: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 53: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 54: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 55: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 56: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 57: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 58: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 59: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 61: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'b) Issue 15 http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 62: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'TITLE'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 63: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'SUBMITTED BY'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 65: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'c) Issue 1 http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 66: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'TITLE'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 67: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'SUBMITTED BY'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 69: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'd) Issue 14 http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 70: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'Title'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 71: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'Submitted by'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 73: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'e) Issue 16 http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 74: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'TITLE'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 75: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'SUBMITTED BY'
command-scribe: Line 87: Ivana Trickovic recognized
command-scribe: Schreiber detected that this section was scribed online
edit-substitute: command on line 202 succeeded, changed line 200 from 'except' to 'of the process, except'
edit-delete: Line 202 was deleted
edit-substitute: command on line 218 succeeded, changed line 214 from 'by' to 'about'
edit-delete: Line 218 was deleted
edit-substitute: command on line 228 succeeded, changed line 226 from 'CA finds' to 'SCA finds'
edit-delete: Line 228 was deleted
system: Transformer: SAXON 9.0.0.2
[End of Schreiber diagnostic output]