[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp-wsia] Minutes for 27 February 2003 Meeting
concerning #156:
my understanding was that we said that not the arrays as a whole are
mutually exclusive, but that a property can not be placed in both.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,
Richard Jacob
______________________________________________________
IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469 - Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com
|---------+---------------------------->
| | Danny Machak |
| | <dmachak@tibco.co|
| | m> |
| | |
| | 02/27/2003 10:51 |
| | PM |
|---------+---------------------------->
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: WSRP <wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org> |
| cc: |
| Subject: [wsrp-wsia] Minutes for 27 February 2003 Meeting |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Meeting started at 9:06 PST
An attempt to start the meeting at 8:00 AM PST failed due to a lack
of a quorum.
====================================================================
The minutes were accepted from the meeting last Thursday, 2/20/03
The Tuesday meeting on 2/25/03 was cancelled due to a lack of a
quorum.
====================================================================
Roll Call
Voting Members:
-------------------
Alejandro Abdelnur Sun no
Sasha Aickin Plumtree no
Subbu Allamaraju BEA yes
Olin Atkinson Novell yes
Atul Batra Sun yes
Amir Blich SAP yes
Chris Braun Novell yes
Rex Brooks Starbourne yes
T.J. Cox Novell no
William Cox BEA no
Brian Dirking Stellent no
Michael Freedman Oracle yes
Ross Fubini Plumtree yes
Richard Jacob IBM yes
Jon Klein Reed-Elsevier yes
Andre Kramer Citrix yes
Alan Kropp Vignette Corporation yes
Carsten Leue IBM yes
Dan Machak Tibco yes
Madoka Mitsuoka Fujitsu yes
Adam Nolan Reed-Elsevier yes
Sunit Randhawa Fujitsu no
Nigel Ratcliffe Factiva no
Eilon Reshef WebCollage no
Joe Rudnicki U.S. Navy no
Gennady Shumaker SAP yes
Yossi Tamari SAP Portals no
Gil Tayar WebCollage no
Rich Thompson IBM yes
Eric van Lydegraf Kinzan no
Michael Young Plumtree no
Charles Wiecha IBM yes
Total voting members: 32
Voting members in attendance: 19 (59%)
A quorum was present.
Members on Leave Of Absence
----------------------------
Monica Martin Drake Certivo LOA
Petr Palas Moravia IT LOA
Raj Ramesh CommerceOne LOA
Thomas Schaeck IBM LOA
Steven Smith Capitol College LOA
WSIA Members in attendance (non-voting)
---------------------------------------
Bruce Lucas IBM yes
====================================================================
Summary of Change Requests:
167 ? Correct mime types ACCEPTED
171 ? Make RegistrationState field use explicit. ACCEPTED
172 ? explicitly useCachedMarkup ACCEPTED
142 ? Remove performInteraction()? TIE VOTE
147 ? Exposes Registration portType or req registration?: ACCEPTED
170 ? Producer providing UserCategory support for Portlets ACCEPTED
169 ? Is resourceName usage a conformance statement? ACCEPTED
153 ? Make resourceName optional? ACCEPTED
151 ? UserScope definition ACCEPTED
155 ? Resending UserContext semantics ACCEPTED
174 ? Processing a new cacheControl ACCEPTED
156 ? Reset + set properties semantics ACCEPTED
144 ? Meaning of requiresRegistration field ACCEPTED
158 ? ServiceDescription.locales definition Treated as Change
Bar in
spec
====================================================================
Small editorial/grammar changes (I do not expect to walk through
these unless there are objections):
167 ? Correct mime types
Section 5.1.10 / Page 19 / Line 36
Use actual mime types in example rather than common acronyms
171 ? Make RegistrationState field use explicit.
Sections 5.1.19 & 5.1.20 / Page 24 / Lines 2 & 21
Title says it all
172 ? explicitly useCachedMarkup
Section 6.1.10 / Page 31 / Line 40-42
By being explicit, the conformance statement can
stand on its own
Resolution: Accepted without comment
====================================================================
142 ? Remove performInteraction()?
Impacts many sections
JSR168 has dropped the need for this operation. Do we
still want to keep it? Basic trade-off is the additional
functionality vs the additional complexity for understanding,
implementing and testing.
Arguments for removing: reduction in complexity
Arguments against removing: already defined. Semantics are useful.
Resolution: Tie vote 9 for removing, 9 for keeping, 1 abstain
Vote outcome:
Subbu Allamaraju BEA yes
Olin Atkinson Novell abstain
Atul Batra Sun yes
Amir Blich SAP no
Chris Braun Novell yes
Rex Brooks Starbourne no
Michael Freedman Oracle no
Ross Fubini Plumtree yes
Richard Jacob IBM yes
Jon Klein Reed-Elsevier no
Andre Kramer Citrix no
Alan Kropp Vignette Corporation no
Carsten Leue IBM yes
Dan Machak Tibco yes
Madoka Mitsuoka Fujitsu no
Adam Nolan Reed-Elsevier no
Gennady Shumaker SAP no
Rich Thompson IBM yes
Charles Wiecha IBM yes
A yes vote means that performInteraction would be removed.
====================================================================
147 ? Exposes Registration portType or requires registration?
Section 3.5 / Page 11 / Line 34-35
Proposal is to change a conformance statement from exposing
the in-band technique for registering to the use of the
requiresRegistration flag.
Resolution: Accepted - Will drop sentence entirely
====================================================================
170 ? Producer providing UserCategory support for Portlets
Section 5.1.1 / Page 20 / Line 4-5
Proposal is to drop the conformance level language from
the note that the Producer may actually provide this support on
behalf of the Portlet.
Resolution: Accepted - Will drop sentence entirely
====================================================================
169 ? Is resourceName usage a conformance statement?
Section 5.1.5 / Page 17 / Line 19-20
Question is the value of making the use of resourceName
as an indirection in a ResouceList a conformance statement. Proposal
is to keep the content, but not as a conformance statement.
Resolution: Accepted - Will drop conformance language.
====================================================================
153 ? Make resourceName optional?
Section 5.1.5 / Page 17 / Line 23
Proposal is to have semantics for not supplying a
resourceName (namely that values for other locales are not supplied).
Resolution: Accepted
====================================================================
151 ? UserScope definition
Section 5.1.11 / Page 19 / Line 19-20 + others
Proposal change UserScope from a tri-value to an open-ended
set with 2 predefined values. This drops the needs to use the
extensions field just to carry the name of other semantics.
Resolution: Accepted: UserScope field changed to type String.
Define Strings for the 2 pre-defined scopes. This
will be modelled more like modes and window-states.
====================================================================
155 ? Resending UserContext semantics
Section 5.1.11 / Page 20 / Line 29
Proposal is to clarify the semantics of new information being
supplied for either UserContext or Templates.
Resolution: Approved. Semantics should be that new info
replaces the old.
====================================================================
174 ? Processing a new cacheControl
Section 6.1.10 / Page 31 / Line 40-42
Be explicit when useCachedMarkup is "true" and a new
CacheControl is supplied, it replaces the previous one.
Resolution: Approved. Semantics should be that new info
replaces the old.
====================================================================
156 ? Reset + set properties semantics
Section 5.1.14 / Page 21 / Line 37
Proposal is for clear semantics when a property is
included in both the reset and set arrays of a PropertyList.
First question is whether it is necessary to define any
semantics on how to handle properties in both arrays, or to
enforce the two arrays to be mutually exclusive.
Resolution: Approved. Arrays are mutually exclusive.
Producer will throw a fault.
====================================================================
144 ? Meaning of requiresRegistration field
Section 5.1.18 / Page 23 / Line 17
Proposal is for a new conformance statement for when
requiresRegistration='true'.
Resolution: Approved.
====================================================================
158 ? ServiceDescription.locales definition
Section 5.1.18 / Page 23 / Line 29
Proposal seeks to clarify that not all LocalizedStrings
will have values for all locales.
Resolution: Rich will update the language.
====================================================================
There will be 2 teleconferences next week:
Tuesday, March 4
8:00 am PST / 11:00 am EST / 5:00 pm CET
duration: 1 hour
Thursday March 6
8:00 am PST / 11:00 am EST / 5:00 pm CET
duration: 2 hours
====================================================================
Meeting adjournded at 10:05 PST
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC