[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] FW: [sca-assembly-comment] Microsoft's response for Public Review of SCA Assembly Model v1.1 - 15 day review
On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Estefan, Jeff A (3100) wrote: > Mike and Martin (and SCA-Assembly TC Members), > > It is unacceptable in my opinion that this issue (Issue #132) and > its cousin (Issue #149) simply be closed with a resolution of "No > Action." The points made by Michael Champion of Microsoft and by > Philipp Knoradi of Siemens are very valid ones and we should not > take an OASIS-only parochial perspective on these closely related > issues. Included below is the Don Ferguson response to Jim Marino > on this topic from back in June 2009 who's words in his last > sentence should not be taken lightly. hi jeff, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't believe their points are valid and it is unacceptable in my opinion that we allow a vendor to claim they have built a conformant SCA product without providing a standardized way for someone to actually write and implement a composite application. The reason I voted to close no action was that after several months of conversation, I had yet to hear a concrete proposal that folks were willing to entertain that would do this. Do you have a concrete proposal for how we can provide assurances that when someone implements an SCA application that they have a way to implement it in a standard way without actually standardizing the implementation type(s)? If you simply want to resurrect the "remove the requirement solution", I see no benefit in repeating the same arguments once again and would vote against re-opening the issue. cheers, jeff > > ----------------- > > From: Ferguson, Donald F [mailto:Donald.Ferguson@ca.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:40 AM > To: Jim Marino; OASIS Assembly; sca-assembly-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 132] Rebuttal: Against the use of > portability and functions as reasons for requiring one of the > existing 4 languages > > I do not see any reason to believe that we cannot define a > conformance test for SCA Assembly. If we are able to do so, we would > not need to require support for the core languages. I assert that 1) > We should not assume that we cannot define a compliance test until > we have tried. 2) An assembly spec that places requirements on > internal implementation languages is flawed. > > Finally, I was present in IBM when we started work on SCA. Language > independence and encapsulation of implementation was an explicit > objective. The IBM architecture leadership would have vetoed any > assembly spec with this requirement. > > Dr. Donald F. Ferguson > Distinguished Engineer > Corporate Senior Vice President > Chief Architect Products and Technology > donald.ferguson@ca.com > donff2@aol.com > www.donald-ferguson.net/blog > > ----------------- > > If we want to insure SCA-Assembly portability to the maximum extent > possible, is it not possible to create a Java EE-like Compatibility > Test Suite (CTS) for SCA runtimes? If such an effort is too > daunting to accomplish in the next several months, then we can't > simply punt on these very important points regarding implementation > neutrality when it comes to the SCA-Assembly spec. We must either > remove the conformance clause that mandates use of one of the > current SCA implementation languages, or consider some acceptable > variant to that language, e.g., Sanjay's proposal. > > Recognizing that it requires a 2/3rds supermajority to re-open a > closed issue, I would still like to propose that Issues #132 and > #149 be reopened with acceptable resolution to the concerned > community other than "No Action." > > Regards... > > - Jeff, NASA/JPL > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]