[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
All, much as I think the Event Handling spec is pretty useful I have to agree with Simon. As Mike pointed out there are actually quite a few open issues now. I don't think the current PRD/CD03 spec is a completely accurate reflection on what the final document will look like. If you add to this Event Handling the it will be too much work to deal with in a reasonable time. (Do I need to mention TESTING it as well? :-} Let's wrap up what we have in the 1.1 PRD and then think about how to add in Event Handling. Best Regards, Eric. > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Nash [mailto:oasis@cjnash.com] > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12:54 PM > To: Anish Karmarkar > Cc: OASIS Assembly > Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution > > Anish, > I am very concerned about the work involved in fully > integrating the event concepts into SCA Assembly and > presumably all the other SCA specs. > > At this stage in the SCA 1.1 lifecycle I believe our priority > should be to close down the few remaining issues, complete > the public reviews, and move to formal ratification of the > SCA 1.1 standard based on the current specifications. > > Absorbing this major new piece of functionality into the SCA > specs will have large implications and push out the > completion of SCA 1.1 by some considerable time. IMO it > would be better to look at whether the Events support could > be standardized in some other form such as a separate delta > or supplement to the SCA 1.1 base specs. This would allow > the current specifications to achieve standardization in a > timely manner, followed by an SCA Events 1.1 standard when > this is complete and ready to go forward. > > Simon > > Anish Karmarkar wrote: > > I would like to propose that we use the contribution at [2], as a > > basis for a directional resolution for issue 80 [1]. > Specifically, we > > introduce the concepts of events, event types, producers, > consumers, > > channels; and the changes these concepts make to the existing > > composite/component/componentType/constrainingType constructs. > > > > If this directional resolution is accepted, I suggest that > an inlined > > document (with change marks) be produced that provides a > merge between > > [2] and the existing latest version of SCA Assembly. This > would then > > serve as a basis for the resolution of issue 80. > > > > Comments? > > > > -Anish > > -- > > > > [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-80 > > [2] > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php > > > /32379/SCA_Assembly_Extensions_for_Event_Processing_and_PubSub_V1_0.pd > > f > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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_workgr > oups.php >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]