Re: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section - Comments on Proposal

[Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>]

On Mar 02, 2009, at 6:55 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:

>
> 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.

I'm afraid i don't understand the question. There are several  
possibilities:
1. your claim about the document is incorrect
2. you have a bug in the runtime
3. both are true - the document is valid but the runtime is correct to  
reject it because it doesn't support the doc type
4. there is an inconsistency in the specs, i.e. an issue that needs to  
be resolved.

>
>
> Adding tests that actually test the documents themselves might do  
> so.  But at a very large cost.

If your argument is that it is too costly to test, so we shouldn't  
define, that seems rather weak.
In any event, there won't be a complete set of tests anyway. We'll do  
as much as we can and that we thinks makes sense.

cheers,
   jeff

>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Jeff Mischkinsky			          		jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware 				+1(650)506-1975
	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065