sca-assembly message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section - Commentson Proposal
- From: Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
- To: "'OASIS Assembly'" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:55:39 +0000
Martin,
"
is if someone claims their document is valid yet an SCA Runtime rejects
it as being invalid; who is correct? "
Adding these documents as targets does
not help answer that question.
Adding tests that actually test the
documents themselves might do so. But at a very large cost.
Yours, Mike.
Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
From:
| "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
|
To:
| Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "'OASIS
Assembly'" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Date:
| 02/03/2009 13:30
|
Subject:
| RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete
the Conformance Section - Comments on Proposal |
Of course I have to disagree
about defining the document types. We have to have normative conformance
definitions in our spec as what constitutes a valid document. How can we
have statements about an SCA Runtime rejecting invalid documents if we
don’t have definitions of a valid ones?
One of the reasons to have
this definition separate from runtime statements, is if someone claims
their document is valid yet an SCA Runtime rejects it as being invalid;
who is correct? Now I do not intend to create extra work here w.r.t test
cases, but I do think these definitions have to exist.
Martin.
From: Mike Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: 02 March 2009 11:43
To: 'OASIS Assembly'
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section
- Comments on Proposal
Folks,
Some comments on the proposal:
1) I think that making a series of SCA-related documents into conformance
points, as per section 12.1, is unnecessary and unwise.
The only point of making these documents into conformance points is if
it is intended to write testcase(s) that will validate those
documents. I do not believe that we have the resources to write such
testcases and as a result, the conformance demands made
here are a waste of time and effort.
What matters is what an SCA runtime does with the documents - we have that
fully specified - and we have testcases for these claims.
2) Form of the conformance statement for documents is incorrect.
Should read as follows
"An SCA Composite Document is a file that MUST have an SCA <composite/>
element as its root element and MUST conform
to the sca-core-1.1.xsd schema and MUST comply with the additional constraints
on the document contents as defined in
Appendix C."
3) "SCA Interoperable Packaging document"
This terminology is not used in the spec. "Contribution Packaging
using ZIP Packaging format" would be correct.
Also the normative statement "A ZIP file containing SCA Documents
and other related artifacts which MUST have a
SCA Contribution Document as a top level element." is simply
incorrect.
Section 11.2.3 states clearly that "it can contain a top-level "META-INF"
directory and a "META-INF/sca-contribution.xml" file
and there can also be a "META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml"
file in the package."
- so the contribution file is NOT mandatory and it is certainly not "top
level".
4) Item 4 in Section 12.2 - Requirement to implement the Web services binding.
I'd prefer a looser requirement to implement ONE of the adopted bindings.
Forcing Web services in all cases seems more
than is necessary to me.
Yours, Mike.
Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
From:
| "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
|
To:
| "'Bryan Aupperle'" <aupperle@us.ibm.com>,
"'OASIS Assembly'" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Date:
| 26/02/2009 14:33
|
Subject:
| RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the
Conformance Section |
Bryan,
Fair point. Here is another take. I have also put them into the SCA Assembly
TC document archive, as I mistakenly put the first versions in the
Bindings TC!
WORD: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/31432/sca-assembly-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd02-Rev5%20-%20ISSUE%20101%20v2.doc
PDF: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/31433/sca-assembly-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd02-Rev5%20-%20ISSUE%20101%20v2.pdf
Martin.
From: Bryan Aupperle [mailto:aupperle@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 24 February 2009 19:57
To: 'OASIS Assembly'
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section
I am a little surprised, given your rather persuasive argument in the Java
TC a couple of weeks ago, that you did not include a contribution as a
conformance target. It seems to me that if a contribution is going
to conform to a C&I spec, it must also conform to the assembly spec.
Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
"Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
02/24/2009 08:33 AM
|
To
| "'OASIS Assembly'" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance
Section |
|
A proposal can be found at:
WORD: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-bindings/download.php/31382/sca-assembly-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd02-Rev5%20-%20ISSUE%20101.doc
PDF: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-bindings/download.php/31383/sca-assembly-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd02-Rev5%20-%20ISSUE%20101.pdf
Martin.
Martin Chapman | Standards Professional
Mobile: +353 87 687 6654
ORACLE Ireland
"Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing
this e-mail"
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]