OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

camp message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [camp] PDP subcommittee and next meeting

Only concern is that there are other P1 issues to discuss and at least one proposal.
If there is a capable pro-tem chair volunteer that might be better?


On 13/05/2013 18:55, Martin Chapman wrote:
Alex et al,

I will probably not be able to make this Wednesday's TC call so I was thinking of cancelling and handing over the time slot to a pdp call - this would not be a formal call to maintain voting rights etc.



-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Heneveld [mailto:alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com]
Sent: 13 May 2013 18:17
To: camp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [camp] PDP subcommittee and next meeting

Hi folks-

Thanks to all who joined the call just now.  Productive.  My notes and thoughts

I'll send an invite to the list for tomorrow's call at 4pm UK / 8am PDT, using
GTM details (with Switzerland for Anish this time):


     United States:  1 (646) 982-0002
     United Kingdom:  44 (0) 203 535 0624
     Switzerland:  41 (0) 435 0167 07
     Germany:  49 (0) 811 8899 6976
     Ireland:  353 (0) 14 845 975
     Access Code: 759-306-270


(Not intended as a transcript of the call, but my sense and my thoughts.  Please
feel free to amend by email.)

DP component specs --
      typically become components, and often the platform will supply more
     but the platform MAY NOT reflect a component in the DP spec with a
component in the platform
     (e.g. in a paas which e.g. uses a WAR as an input but doesn't model them as
top-level ACT's)

There are valid reasons why people would want to represent a Platform
Component in the DP (e.g. providing a concrete topology, asking for a server,
asking for a git repo); but in general leaving it abstract, giving App
Components (artifacts) and requirements, is likely to be more portable /

Requirements as explicit types (Alex's (1b) ) tentatively seems clearer now, vs
(1a) in Alex's note from Gil.
Requirements expressed in such a way provide abstraction independent of the
component nodes -- more flexible than just components, and more formal and
dependable than mixins (1c).

Traits as requirements (Alex's (2a) ) as a peer to "relationship"
requirements seems a reasonable
approach but need more time to process.  The line between a "provider /
supertype" requirement on a component and the "relationship" is blurry -- e.g.
in case of a git repo, it might be part of a component (e.g. OpenShift) or it
might be a separate component.


To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates
this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]