RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section

Actually I don’t think the nesting is disallowed e.g. on line 3654:

Contributions do not contain other contributions. If the packaging format is a JAR file that contains other JAR files (or any similar nesting of other technologies), the internal files are not treated as separate SCA contributions. It is up to the implementation to determine whether the internal JAR file is represented as a single artifact in the contribution hierarchy or whether all of the contents are represented as separate artifacts.

From: Mark Combellack [mailto:mcombellack@avaya.com]
Sent: 03 March 2009 12:43
To: Martin Chapman; OASIS Assembly
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section - Comments on Proposal

Hi Martin,

I’ve just had another read through the conformance proposal and noticed the following that I missed on my first read through:

(Line numbers based off PDF document at [1])

Line 4135 – 4136:

SCA Interoperable Packaging Document:

A ZIP file containing SCA Documents and other related artifacts

I read this to mean that a SCA Interoperable Packaging Document can contain any of the SCA Documents defined in section 12.1. The interesting point is that the SCA Interoperable Packaging Document is a SCA Document so this suggests to me that a SCA Interoperable Packaging Document could contain another SCA Interoperable Packaging Document (i.e. recursive nesting of ZIP files)

Is this what you intended? It seems a little strange to be able to nest SCA Interoperable Packaging Documents within each other.

Perhaps it is worth adding a new sentence disallowing this as shown below.

4135: SCA Interoperable Packaging Document:

4136: A ZIP file containing SCA Documents and other related artifacts. The ZIP file MAY contain a top-

4137: level "META-INF" directory, and MAY contain a "META-INF/sca-contribution.xml" file, and MAY

4138: contain a "META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml" file

but MUST NOT contain a SCA Interoperable Packaging Document ZIP file.

Also, a couple of minor editorials:

Line 4136: Missing space between MAY and contain towards the end of the line

Line 4137: Two spaces rather than one space between “a” and "META-INF/sca-contribution.xml"

Thanks,

Mark

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/31487/sca-assembly-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd02-Rev5%20-%20ISSUE%20101%20v3.pdf

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]

> Sent: 02 March 2009 19:40

> To: 'OASIS Assembly'

> Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section -

> Comments on Proposal

> 3rd attempt based on today's con call and comments on email.

> WORD:

> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-

> assembly/download.php/31486/sca-assembly-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd02-Rev5%20-

> %20ISSUE%2010

> 1%20v3.doc

> PDF:

> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-

> assembly/download.php/31487/sca-assembly-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd02-Rev5%20-

> %20ISSUE%2010

> 1%20v3.pdf

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]

> > Sent: 02 March 2009 18:27

> > To: Mike Edwards

> > Cc: 'OASIS Assembly'

> > Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section

> - Comments on Proposal

> >

> > On Mar 02, 2009, at 3:43 AM, 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.

> > >

> > > What matters is what an SCA runtime does with the documents - we

> > > have that fully specified - and we have testcases for these claims.

> >

> > This argument doesn't make sense to me.

> >

> > Where do we specify what documents it has to process and which ones it

> > doesn't. If the specs define it implicitly, then what's the harm of

> > making the definition explicit? If they don't, then we have a big hole

> > i think.

> >

> > The purpose from me perspective is not about producing more tests, but

> > in making sure we are clear in the specs.

> >

> > cheers,

> > jeff

> >

> > >

> > > 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

> > >

> >

> > --

> > 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

> >

> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> > 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:

> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> 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:

> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

sca-assembly message