[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Concerns raised by Siemens
to be honest I’m not very happy about the final outcome of concerns raised by Siemens  and especially the way things went.
The decision to close them with no action came out of nowhere. Maybe that’s just my personal impression but:
- Not a single objection was expressed before on the mailing list
- A solution proposal was already in work (driven by Sanjay) and there were indications of acceptance
- A vote conducted during the TC confcall on 10. Nov. closed with not a single person voting for closing the issue with no action (19 persons present). TC agreed “that modifying the conformance requirements will be considered and the work would be worthwhile”
So what has changed so immediately?
If the problem is the amount of efforts then I offered help already once  and I and my colleagues would be glad to help with the proposal work. Just let me know!
If the problem is the time left until SCA 1.1 release then I think the issues should be closed with agreement to continue the work started in the next SCA Spec release cycle.
Just saying “Can always revisit for 1.2” is totally unsatisfactory because Siemens submitted the concerns in JUNE. If there was not enough time to get to an agreement till end of the year then I doubt that it’s a good investment for Siemens to start the whole game again and try to accommodate the standard to industrial needs.
Is SCA an implementation language independent assembly model or not? If yes, then it should be visible also in conformance requirements IMHO.
Adopting the SCA assembly model for a programming / scripting language which doesn’t belong to the mainstream is currently extremely difficult. Both workarounds, add multi-language support as well as go through standardization, are quite an obstacle and doesn’t really foster wide adoption of SCA.