Roll - quorate with 19 of 26 voting members present
Resolution: Minutes of 2009-07-21 approved w/o
A couple of items in review comments are outstanding and are represented by isues
Plamen's LOA request is approved w/o
Test Assertions and Test Cases
TC admin gas the documents but they are yet to be posted, Edwards is following up
Existing Issues with Proposals
Motion: m:Malhotra s:Booz Resolve Assembly-153 with the proposal in Jira
Resolution: m:Malhotra s:Booz Resolve Assembly-153 with the proposal in Jira w/o
Dave Booz and I have been working on an alternative proposal. Perhaps we can wait for an alternative proposal that we are
I do not think that my proposal is complex, rather the current spec itself is complex, I would be interested in seeing a simplification
as well as a proposal that resolves the issue.
Folks agree to defer discussion until the alternate proposal is ready
I suggest that we schedule a parallel set of meetings to discus eventing to allow discussion in a timely manner.
...Asynchronous disconnected models are really important to many applications.
sorry about the noise
yes, additional meetings for assembly TC
i think that comes first
to consider the eventing
before we talk about Java, BPEL, etc.
my point about java/bpel is that there IS work to do there, and we will be making initial proposals to get that work started
orcl don't have any expertise on the c/c++
+1 to Sanjay
It's not a question of who contributes resources but it is also a matter how much can the market digest - SCA already carries
a risk of being considered as too complex, I think.
Is SOA irrelevent today without SCA?
no, but it is not standardized
first time someone has accused me of being optimistic in a while :-)
Right so why don't we solve that (non trivial) problem first!
this has been on the agenda for assembly since the beginning
our original plan was also to have finished our work a year ago :-)
Let us not forget that the Eventing spec contribution addresses mainly Assembly aspects - we need to work out language and
Let us also not forget that we need at least two implementations for exit criteria - we have been struggling to get that even
for the current SCA specs
Of course we need all the testing work also done too
Even an additional 3-6 month delay seems a little too long to wait for any official SCA release
Summarizes - we have a proposal to start work in parallel meetings within the Assembly TC as well as some related work in
the language TCs
...there are also concerns as to the potential impact on the schedule on the current work
Do we have a 'Deferred' state in the issue model?
Motion: m:Vorthmann s:Combellack Close Assembly-80 with no action
Motion: m:Nash s:Combellack to amend by replacement "Defer Assembly-80 until the 1.2 release od SCA Assembly"
what is a release?
Without eventing, then SCA will be incomplete and unacceptable
If Eventing is so important why wasn't it included in the original OSOA spec?
because it is hard for everyone to agree upon
many ways to skin the cat
becuase it took the osoa group a while to work it out and produce a joint proposal
Which implies it will be longer than 3-6 months for incorporation into SCA?
not when you consider that the contentious bits have been worked out
we do not believe the contentious bits have been worked out at all
But the same could be said for the base Assembly spec itself (OSOA -> SCA)
Scott, I disagree ... some of us have spent a lot of effort working out the contentious bits
All I'm saying is the if eventing is so critical that you can't release a spec without it why did that happen for OSOA?
an error in judgement?
please allow me to retain my own opinion on which bits are contentious
not really error in judgement. it was more about pipelining and efficiency
if we vote to close, then properly w/o opening the issue, it can't even appear on agenda
Motion: m:Nash s:Vorthmann Calls the previous question
motion for the previous question passes with unanimous consent.
motion to amend by replacement passes with unanimous consent
Motion: m:Nash s:Sabin calls the previous question on the main motion as amended
result of a roll call vote was 12 yes 8 no
Call for the previous question fails at 60%
How about one or two additional calls to get a feel for how much work is needed?
Please carry on in the email list and lets find a way to move forward.
Schreiber diagnostics output
[Delete this section before publishing the minutes]
final validation: Title not specified, default title 'OASIS SCA-Assembly TC...' was assumed
statistics: Schreiber found 89 input lines
edits: Schreiber found no text-edit commands
command-scribe: Line 2: Since the line number is less than or equal to 20 we will interpret this as a scribename command,
note that the scribe command is deprecated
command-scribe: Line 2: Bob Freund is recognized
command-scribe: Line 2: Bob Freund's nick Bob has been selected
command-chair: Line 3: Since the line number is less than or equal to 20 we will interpret this as a chairname command, note
that the chair command is deprecated
command-autoroll/oasis: Line 139: Attempting to fetch roll from http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/event.php?event_id=16102
command-autoroll/oasis: Line 139: Successfully fetched roll from http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/event.php?event_id=16102
system: Transformer: SAXON 184.108.40.206
[End of Schreiber diagnostic output]