[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Action item: SCA BPEL conformance statements and component Type
Myself and Anish had a chat about conformance targets and component types. Here's a summary and conclusion. Martin. ----- WRT component type (CT) there are three cases: 1) There is no CT side file and there aren't any SCA extensions in the BPEL process 2) There is no CT side file and there are SCA extensions in the BPEL process 3) There is a CT side file. In case (1), the default rules that we define for the introspected CT kick in. The introspected CT is the effective CT. In case (2), the default rules in conjunction with our extension rules specify what the effective CT will be. In case (3), the introspected CT is merged/overridden with/by the side file to provide the effective CT. SCA has the following as conformance targets (relevant to issue 18): a) component type side files b) composite files c) SCA runtime We think we should restrict the conformance statements to these targets and not create new conformance targets that aren't physical artifacts that you can point to. We would like to propose that 1) In the assembly spec we define a term 'effective CT' (or something like that -- the name isn't important). There is already issue 36 [1] filed in Assembly TC that is meant to address how the CT side file relates to introspection (subset/override) and essentially what the 'effective CT' will be. In addressing that issue we can define precisely how the effective CT is calculated from the side file and the introspected CT, and we can complete the conformance statements about the relationships between the conformance targets (comonent type side files, composite file, and implementations) 2) In the assembly spec, we should have conformance statements that applies to the SCA runtime which say what the runtime MUST/MUST NOT do given an effective CT. For example, it would talk about the fact that all services that are part of the effective CT must be enabled/deployed/made available by the runtime. 3) In the bpel spec we should define what the introspected CT/default rules are. These would be definition/rules. Not conformance statements. The bpel spec or any other impl spec will not contain conformance statements wrt CT, only rules/assertions. 4) In the bpel spec we should have conformance statement about the BPEL process. For example: Both sca:service and sca:reference attributes MUST NOT be present on the same partnerlink in a SCA BPEL process. These are the rules to produce a valid introspected CT; violate these rules in your source, and you have an non-compliant source. In effect, the implementation specs specify (i) rules for introspection and extensions and (ii) conformance statements that apply to implementation sources (such as BPEL process). And assembly spec specifies (i) how effective CT is calculated and (ii) conformance statements on SCA runtime wrt what it does with the effecttive CT. [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-36
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]