[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Raw chat log of 2009-04-23 telcon
anish: Agenda -- anish: 1. Roll Call http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-bpel/members/roster.php 2. Appointment of scribe Scribe list attached below 3. Agenda bashing 4. Approval of Apr 16, 2009 minutes http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200904/msg00038.html 5. Action Items review #0062 Sanjay - Reword SBL-TA-SP01 to reflect new tighter spec language PENDING #0063 Anish - Raise an issue regarding section 2.1.2: testability, do we need that section, should the 'MUST' be changed to 'SHOULD' DONE 6. New issues Issue 38: Is the 'MUST' in section 2.1.2 needed? http://osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-38 7. Test assertion doc Latest Draft v06: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200904/msg00028.html This draft covers all our 2119 statements. The TAs need to be reviewed, comments addressed and approved. We'll pick up reviewing new TAs added by Anish followed by review of the TAs added by Khanderao. 8. Plan for testing 9. AOB anish: Date: 2009-04-23 anish: Chair: Sanjay Patil Martin C: Scribe: Martin C Martin C: Topic: Agenda Martin C: Approved Martin C: Topic: Minutes Martin C: Apr 16, 2009 minutes http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200904/msg00038.html Martin C: Minutes approved w/o Martin C: Topic: Action Items Martin C: #0062: ongoing Martin C: #0063 Done Martin C: Topic: New issues Martin C: Issue 38: http://osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-38 Martin C: Anish provides overview of issue Martin C: Anish moves to open issue-38, 2nd Mike R Martin C: passed w/o Martin C: discussion on resolution for 38 Martin C: Mike R: deleting the section might not be appropriate, something needs to be said Martin C: Najeeb: how is this defferent then a plain old bpel with initialisepartnerrole=true Martin C: some knowledge is needed Martin C: Anish: sounds more like a bpel test not an sca one Martin C: Mike R: if its deployment this is not part of ws-bpel, but sca is about deployment so is possible Martin C: Mike R: leaning towards the SHOULD solution anish: ScribeNick: Martin C Martin C: scribe not doing a great job at capturing the discussion Martin C maybe he wont be asked to scribe again Martin C: Anish: not convinced it should be a SHOULD as can see how it can be tested Khanderao requests a private chat with you Martin C: possible direction, keep the MUST but tidy up the language/decription Michael Rowley: If initializePartnerRole="yes" is specified for a partner link then any component that uses this business process as an implementation MUST configure the corresponding service to use a binding that knows the address of the partner as soon as the partner link becomes active (e.g. the binding cannot depend on using a reply-to field as the mechanism to initialize the partner role). Martin C: Action: Maike R to draft a resolution to issue-38 based on the discussion Martin C: s/Mai/Mi/ Martin C: Topic: Test Assertions Doc Martin C: Resume reviewing at 2012 Martin C: 2013 Martin C: Anish goes over 2013 Martin C: no comments Martin C: 2014 Martin C: Dieter: PartnetLinkTypes have two roles, partnerlinks may have either one or both roles specified Martin C: so usually it is obvious looking at the partnerlink Martin C: Dieter: might need to go through all the cases of each or both roles being present Martin C: sometime the value is implicit Martin C: Anish: the sca spec text does cover this Martin C: this comes from BPEL Martin C: Maybe a new issue Martin C: Dieter will look to see if a new issue needs to be raised Martin C: ACTION: Dieter to look for a new issue wrt parterlinks and test assertion 2014 Martin C: 2015 Martin C tick tock Martin C time up Martin C: Topic: AOB Martin C: straggler roll anish: Done with TA2016 Martin C: Meeting closed anish: Next week we should start with TA2017
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]