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

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Mike Edwards wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

I would like to understand what additional tests will have to be written.
There are already requirements on SCA runtime regarding rejecting what I 
would call non-conformant SCA documents. To test that we would have to 
create non-conformant documents, use it with a runtime and ensure that 
the runtime rejects them. What additional test artifact would have to be 
created wrt document conformance? I.e., we have a set of documents that 
we assert are non-conformant. We of course would have a set of 
conformant documents (for the positive test for a runtime).

I can see us not wanting to create non-conformant (or conformant) SCA 
documents for every little feature and element/attribute that schema 
allows. But we are now talking about how detailed our test suite is 
going to be. Given that there is a requirement for runtimes to reject 
invalid SCA documents, this is already an issue. I don't think we need 
to Turing complete.

-Anish
--

> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>