[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: F2F: Minutes for the afternoon session on Wednesday 9th February.
WS-CAF face to face, 9th February 1345 – 1730
WS-Coordination Framework
Mark
Overview 5th February draft, mostly editorial clarifications of 0.2
Martin: We need a better way of tracking resolved issues
Mark: This is currently done by marking the issue as 'closed later' and then 'closed resolved' on resolution.
Martin: Any general comments on the specification?
Tony: General comments are in the contribution we have made.
Greg: There are comments in the specification requiring clarification
Triage/prioritization
Martin proposes to spend 30 secs on each one (73 bugs) to decide it if it is editorial/not an issue/technical issue.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=144 - drop example
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=145 - Roles and Responsibilities
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=146 - Text clarification for coordination demarcation
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=147 - WS-CF tied to WS-Context
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=148 - WS-CF activity versus WS-Context activity
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=149 -Text clarification for context propagation
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=150 - Coordinator versus Coordination Service
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=151 - Text related to ALS needs removing or modifying
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=152 - Optional ALS text and diagram
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=153 - Protocol configuration and negotiation section
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=154 - Relationship to WSDL section
closed, resolved
Motined by Mark
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=155 - Coordination and activities section
closed, resolved
Motioned by Mark
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=156 - WS-CF components section
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=157 - References to endpoints in messages
closed, resolved
Motioned by Mark
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=158 - Truncate interposition text
closed, resolved
Motioned by Mark
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=159 - Spec is more than “outline”
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=160 - Multiple use of word “activity”
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=161 - What is a Participant
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=162 - Use of term “implementation of a Coordination Service”
ACTION: assigned to editorial to implement the suggestion
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=163 - WS-CF without Coordinator and Participant
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=164 - Figure 1 problems
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=165 - Protocol requirements
Not in the specification but is the four body diagram useful? (Mark, Martin)
MOTION: Mark – Tony shows the four body diagram, associated text and how it relates to CF.
SECONDED: Martin.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=166 - Implementation of what ?
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=167 - Coordinator, participant purpose and model
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=168 - Activity hierarchy
Martin: context can have a partial hierarchy but not a graph. Do we insist on full tree? Need discussion. Accepted as an issue.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=169 - Changing the coordinator
Martin: is it related to recovery?
Mark: just participant
Tony: our proposal allows the registrar to move as well as the coordinator.
Leave as an issue.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=170 - URI for protocols and coordinator implementations
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=171 - Invokes operation X on service Y
Action: assigned to editorial to remove
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=172 - Role names
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=173 - Request/response or one-ways
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=174 - Coordinator and ALS
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=175 - Implementation and service
closed, duplicate of another open issue 162
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=176 - Coordination Service broadcasts ?
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=177 - Participant service and CTX service
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=178 - Service-to-coordinator, Client-to-coordinator messages fully contextualized ?
ACTION: assigned to editorial to clarify which operations require a context and whether it is a full context or just a context identifier.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=179 - “call-back address” is ServiceCoordinator
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=180 - ServiceCoordinator entities
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=181 - Allow late enrollment
still an issue
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=182 - What defines beginning of completion
No complete in CF, need to rely on context
still an issue, needs discussion
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=183 - Multiple registration
closed, resolved
Up to referencing specification
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=184 - Fault for disallowed removeParticipant
ACTION: editorial. change the text so that the rules regarding the raising of the wrongState fault is the responsibility of the referencing specification.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=185 - getParentCoordinator not needed
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=186 - How are qualifiers “registered with a coordinator service”
Mark: weren't qualifiers removed in Dublin?
Greg: Decided in Dublin that this was an overlap in policy.
ACTION: assigned to editorial – need to cleanup documentation
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=187 - Wsdl, request/reply, fields
ACTION: assigned to editorial – keep the same style for operational description
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=188 - How is ClientCoordinator endpoint known
closed, no action
Latest names can be reviewed and any issues raised.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=189 - coordinator/ActivityCoordinator, enlisted participant/registered Participant
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=190 - Context with no Activity ?
If it is an invalid activity then this should be pushed down to context, if it is an invalid coordinator it shouldn't be.
This is still an issue.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=191 - Type of status
ACTION: assigned to editorial to check that the terminology is consistent.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=192 - Coordinator-reference
Tony: reason is that there is no updated schema.
Leave open as a reminder to check when the updated schema has been generated.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=193 - Mysteries in example context
Example is no longer present.
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=194 - “coordination domain”
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=195 - Interposition
Still an issue, no disagreements.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=196 - Recovery
We have new text and any potential issues can be raised against that.
closed, no action.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=197 - Port for RecoveryCoordinator
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=198 - Recovery of coordinators
closed, duplicate of 169
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=199 - Fault when recovery temporarily not allowed
Still an issue.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=200 - getStatus
Examine new WSDL and raise any issues.
closed, no action.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=201 - Beginning and ending of coordinated activity
Martin: Should we be more explicit concerning the relationship to WS-Context?
ACTION: assign to editorial – draft text expanding/clarifying the relationship with WS-Context.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=202 - WS-CF components diagram
ACTION: Tony to check to see if the figure still exists.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=203 - Definition of coordination service
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=204 - Web service provider – “participant api”
no longer relevant
closed, no action
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=205 - Example doesn’t use ws-cf facilities
no longer relevant.
examples should be placed in a primer.
closed, no action.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=206 - Extension fields in wrong place
Check again when the new schema is produced.
closed, no action.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=207 - Justification and tutorial inappropriate
no longer relevant
closed, no action.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=208 - Conformance to this Coordination Framework specification
Martin: we need a conformance statement.
Still an issue.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=210 - namespace
closed, already resolved.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=211 - Clarification in error propagation text
Issue with Greg.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=212 - atomic registration of participant
closed, resolved
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=213 - Participant list in the context?
This was removed from Context and it needs to be incorprated into CF.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=215 - Add diagrams showing the CAF architecture
Martin: Make sure we are consistent across all of our specifications. All WSDLs have a consistent style.
ACTION: assigned to editorial
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=216 - Add tables giving message parameters and types
ACTION: assigned to editorial. Tony offered to give editorial assistence.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=217 - Add message sequencing specification
Still an issue.
ACTION: editors to come up with a concrete template for each WSDL and then apply.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=226 - Relevance of client-to-coordinator interactions
Still an issue.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=227 - What is currently known as Coordination Framework should be about Link formation, migation and termination
Still an issue.
Triage finished, discussion of issues.
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=168 - Activity hierarchy
Greg: Conceptually there can be hierarchies but there is no requirement for it to be included in the context.
Tony: referencing spec should be able to mandate strict hierarchy but should not be forced to.
Mark: This can be handled by interposition, do we need to say any more in the spec?
Tony: We would want the facility to implement arbitrary graphs and not be restricted to a hierarchy.
Mark: Could have two contexts specified in a header for cycles.
Greg: Should we be able to describe arbitrary graphs? Directed graphs? Undirected graphs? All graph theory?
Greg: The relationships currently supported are parent/child from Context and peer/sibling from Coordination
Current implementation allows for a directed, cyclic graph using different contexts.
Martin: core does not talk about parent/child.
We could include a statement saying that an activity group could join another activity group.
Include discussion of proposal from 227 to determine whether it is relevant to 168.
Tony: The basic idea is to make CF simple, upon which you can build other things.
Registrar who can register things. The registering agent is acting on behalf of the registrand.
The registrar acts on behalf of the registration.
The proposal has a slightly different configuration for redirecting the link.
The current implementation will support redirection from the participant's perspective but not the coordinators.
Mark: perhaps the only difference is with the recovery of coordinators and we already have an issue for this.
The proposal from 227 is the same as the current architecture but using differing terminology.
There seem to be two distinct issues, coordinator recovery and whether the remove can happen either side.
New issues raised from first part of 227 proposal
- terminology (228)
- update of EPRs on interfaces (recovery) (229)
- Is there a restriction on where remove participant comes from? (230)
The mapping between the current specification and the propoosal from 227 is as follows:-
Participant Service maps to Registrand
Registering Service maps to registering agent
Registration Service maps to registrar
Coordination Service maps to registration.
WS-ContextTree (second part of proposal from 227)
New issue raised
- Martin: We do need to log a more precise issue and say 'what should the registration context look like to support all this functionality? (section 4.2.2)' (231)
Martin: The issues and problems seem to be the same as the current architecture once the issues are addressed.
Tony agrees that these four issues cover the proposal from Choreology.
Tony: referencing specs may want to limit the types of graphs that are built.
Greg: just a protocol restriction
MOTION: Mark - to close 227 depending on resolution of 228, 229, 230, 231
--
Kevin Conner
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]