[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [opencsa-ms] Proposed - OpenCSA Steering Committee (StC) Proposed Agenda - 14 August 2009
A> SCA is already considered to be a fairly complex technology and in order to improve the chances of its adoption we should try to keep it simple and not add any more pieces at this point of time.
B> SCA currently has a clear focus on SOA based compositions. Accommodating event driven architecture (EDA) in SCA at this point of time may lead to confusions in the marketplace about the value proposition of SCA
C> There is still considerable amount of work to be finished by the SCA TCs including testing, addressing concerns of Microsoft/Siemens, etc. Adding SCA eventing will lead to delays in the release of SCA specifications.
D> There is no clear consensus about the technical content of the contributed specification for SCA Eventing (even amongst the parties contributing the SCA eventing spec to the SCA Assembly TC). Identifying and addressing these technical issues, building test suite, providing compliant implementations, etc, is going to make the overall SCA release planning unpredictable.
From: Mike Kaiser [mailto:mkaiser@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, Aug 13, 2009 12:26 PM
To: OpenCSA Member Section
Subject: [opencsa-ms] Proposed - OpenCSA Steering Committee (StC) Proposed Agenda - 14 August 2009
PROPOSED AGENDA - OpenCSA Steering Committee (StC) PROPOSED AGENDA - 14 August 2009 9:00 AM PST
Call-In Information:
Participant passcode: 784631
North America Toll free 1-888-240-4148
Toll/International +1-719-234-0214
London, UK, Local +44 (0) 20 7663 2217
UK toll free 0 800 051 6872
*6 mute/un-mute, *0 operator, *1 help
Our thanks to David Burke and TIBCO for hosting the teleconference number.
0. Agenda bashing and Roll
1. Minutes Approval
- 10 July 2009:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/opencsa-ms/download.php/33329/Open_CSA_SC_20090710_Draft.txt
2. Open Action Item Review and Discussion
AI20081212-001 - Coordinate an effort with Assembly TC to produce an
SCA primer as the specs approach standardization (in review).
STATUS: On Hold until we get closer to standardization.
Keep on hold.
AI20090313-001 Jeff to send the following recommendation to
the TC's.
Recommendation:
Steering Committee Recommends inclusion of the
completed test suite with the main package for
the initial CS vote.
STATUS: Still open. Jeff will do this.
Leave as open.
AI20090605-002 David to set up new moderator call for future
steering committee meetings.
STATUS: Targeting completion for August StC meeting.
3. Overall TC Milestones Status as discussed by LSC:
The following represents the current state of each TC relative
to Public Reviews
* = PR 04/24 - 06/23
& = PR 06/08 - 08/07
? = PR 08/08 - 10/07
- = Schedule not available at this time. (lower priority)
SCA-Assembly TC Specifications (V1.1)
* SCA Assembly Model Specification
SCA-Policy TC Specifications (V1.1)
* SCA Policy Framework
SCA-BPEL TC Specifications (V1.1)
* SCA WS-BPEL Client and Implementation Specification
SCA-C/C++ TC Specifications (V1.1)
* SCA Client and Implementation Model Specification for C
* SCA Client and Implementation Model Specification for C++
SCA-J TC Specifications (V1.1)
& SCA Java Common Annotations and APIs Specification
& SCA Java Component Implementation Specification
- SCA EJB Session Bean Binding Specification
- SCA Spring Component Implementation Specification
- SCA JEE Integration Specification
SCA-Bindings TC Specifications (V1.1)
? SCA Web Services Binding Specification
? SCA JMS Binding Specification
? SCA JCA Binding Specification
- SCA HTTP Binding Specification
SDO TC Specifications (V3.0)
- Service Data Objects Specification
- Service Data Objects for Java
Where are we on the Test Suite progress for each?
(i.e. Test Cases, Test Assertions) For each
- When is TC final review scheduled?
- When is vote for PR scheduled?
- When is Submission to TC Admin for PR scheduled?
- When is PR targeted?
4. Compliant implementation plans
We know that we need something about mid year. There are
several companies working this but implementation timing is
unknown. Open Source (Apache Tuscany, looks to be one
source for at least some of the TC's. Fabric3 may be another).
Each TC will have to make it's own decision on what compliant
implementations they are going to use based on what's available
in the timeframe of standardization and what their test plan
looks like.
The SC must eventually resolve the question of "how it will
make approval decisions" and communicate this to the TC's.
It is expected that the Testing Plans for each TC will
incorporate implementation/testing aspects which encompass
the broader "SCA" picture.
******> We must address the following core questions:
Are we all in agreement that the exit criteria in each
charter applies to Member Submission for vote and not
for Committee Specification approval?
At this stage, what (if any) compliant applications
are the likely candidates which the SC will likely
generally accept?
FROM JUNE 05, 2009 MEETING:
There is some debate as to whether the exit criteria requiring
spec validation by two implementations is necessary prior to
Committee Specification or not.
(A)
One camp argues that CS is defined by OASIS process as a final
deliverable and therefore is subject to the exit criteria. The
CS is a standard of sorts, it is just not one which has been
approved by the entire OASIS Membership. Many (maybe 70%) of
the OASIS specs are in this state without intent to gain
OASIS Membership standardization status. Because of this
CS status should not be granted until there is validation of
at least 2 implementations. we shouldn't have final deliverables
which haven't been fully debugged using the 2 implementation
compliance rule.
(B)
The other camp argues that public perception is that CS's are
not OASIS standards. Perception is that they do represent a
level of specification which is stable enough that Vendors
and customers can implement with some assurances that the OASIS
Member Standard (if there is one) is likely to have little if
any substantive change. This level of specification is used
by some as the tipping point to make resource/dollar/timing
decisions around formal implementations. Therefore, CS status
should be granted to encourage implementations to formally
validate against.
CONTINUE DISCUSSION
5. New Teleconference Passcode Process
Status?
6. Response to Microsoft and Siemens SCA-Assembly Public Review comments.
Microsoft and Siemens (and other internal SCA members) have
raised the question around which of the two following paths
should be taken for claiming SCA Compliance (i.e. A or B).
A) SCA Compliant extensions must be compliant with all of the
following:
a) SCA Assembly,
b) SCA Policy,
c) SCA Binding, and
d) at least one of the SCA Implementation Types
(currently Java, BPEL, C or C++ )
B) SCA Compliant extensions must be compliant with all of the
following:
a) SCA Assembly,
b) SCA Policy and
c) SCA Binding
What is the Steering Committee position?
Additionally, Siemens has challenged the notion that c) should
also not be included in the compliancy requirement.
What is the Steering Committee position?
7. Any Other Business?
8. Future SC Agenda Topics?
9. Next Meeting
- The next regular teleconference is scheduled for Sept 11th, 2009
9:00am PST, 12:00pm EST, 5:00pm UK
(OpenCSA Steering Committee calls are scheduled for the second Friday
of each month.)
10. Adjourn
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]