[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Concerns raised by Siemens
I would like to second Philipp's comments and offer whatever help it takes to implement Sanjay's proposal. Making SCA a more open standard by providing a way to assert conformance using proprietary implementation languages will help with SCA adoption which up to this point has been a bit slow.
I would also like to comment that I was very surprised to find out this issue was brought up late during the face-to-face, without any forewarning. Unfortunately, due to time zone constraints, I wasn't present during the discussion. In my opinion, it would have been much more productive to have:
1. Made more of an effort to include interested parties by continuing the original discussion on the mailing list or calling it out as an explicit agenda item for the face-to-face. We should be aiming at making SCA inclusive. For example, the following comment taken from the F2F meeting minutes over ASSEMBLY-132 and ASSEMBLY-149 does not appear to be in that spirit:
"Essentially it seems that current proposals allow companies to claim conformance to standards without going through the standards process ...MS [Microsoft] could always do a BPEL implementation but it is their problem not ours"
2. Characterized the issue more accurately. The following was stated during the meeting minutes:
"We've actually spent a lot of time on this and been unable to find a satisfactory solution...the issue is delaying the spec and we shouldn't spend more time on this for 1.1"
Actually, there is a proposal (Sanjay's) that does provide a satisfactory solution. In addition, I have spent a significant amount of time with Mike Edwards reviewing the test cases and it is our opinion that the existing structure does provide the ability to verify conformance against proprietary languages. As Philipp said, claiming there is not enough time is a stretch given the issue was raised back in June. If time is as issue, why is significant work being done on the 1.2 specs (e.g. eventing) prior to 1.1 being complete?
3. Provided an official response/explanation as to why the issue was closed. I have only seen the meeting minutes and am not aware of any official response being sent.
I believe these public comments were made in good faith and with the desire to make SCA more open. It would be better if we made an attempt to work directly with the companies that raised these issues and others during the public comment period. Why not engage them to work together on a solution that is satisfactory to everyone?
On Dec 17, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Konradi, Philipp wrote: