From: Mike Edwards
[mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: 03 March 2009 14:15
To: 'OASIS Assembly'
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] Issue 101: Complete the Conformance Section
- Comment/Corrections for latest Proposal (V3)
Martin,
Some comments
and corrections on the latest proposal:
<without
prejudice to my view that documents should not be conformance points ;-)
>
1) SCA Definitions
document:
The current
proposal text does not require that the definitions document have a
<definitions/> element as its root. I think that it should.
Revised text:
SCA
Definitions Document:
An SCA Definitions
Document is a file that MUST have an SCA <definitions/> element as its
root and
MUST conform
to the sca-definition-1.1.xsd schema and MUST comply with the additional
constraints
on the
document contents as defined in Appendix C.
[<MartinC>] Actually I don’t think you can conform to the
schema without definitions as root, but ive no problem being explicit.
2) SCA
Interoperable Packaging Document
Again, I ask
where this terminology comes from. It is not in the current
specification. "Interoperable" gives the wrong
impression
about this format - it implies that it is being sent via some kind of
interoperable service.
[<MartinC>] I got this from line 3617(pdf) “SCA
defines an interoperable packaging format for contributions (ZIP),”
[<MartinC>]I think we need a term to suggest universal
support is required/expected
I suggest the
name "SCA Contribution Packaging using ZIP Document"
( alternatively
just "SCA Contribution Packaging Document" )
I also
recommend that the text is changed as follows:
SCA
Contribution Packaging using ZIP Document:
An SCA
Contribution Packaging using ZIP document is a ZIP file containing a
contribution made up of SCA Documents and/or other artifacts.
The ZIP file
MAY contain a top-level "META-INF" directory, and MAY contain a
"META-INF/sca-contribution.xml" file,
and MAY
contain a "META-INF/sca-contribution-generated.xml" file.
3) SCA Runtime
Bindings requirement
I am not
convinced that the final sentence of bullet 4 adds anything -
" Other
OpenCSA Member Section adopted bindings MAY also be supported."
I suggest
removing this.
[<MartinC>]I agree
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:
|
"'OASIS
Assembly'" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
|
Date:
|
02/03/2009
19:41
|
|
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
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