[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to Sanjay's Proposal
On Apr 29, 2010, at 4:45 AM, Konradi, Philipp wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Sanjay and especially one of his last statements: >> By lowering the bar and inviting more entrants in the game now, I >> think >> we will be making the value proposition of the SCA standard more >> attractive to the user community. I guess vendors will most likely >> jump >> through any hoops such as adopting a new version with tighter >> requirements because their customers are asking them to do so (and >> not >> because a certain TC is demanding something). > > Jeff, I fail to see why Sanjay's proposal is supposed to go into the > wrong direction?! Because following that path will make a product that was previously conformant, non-conformant. So it creates an automatic constituency that would be opposed to adding requirements. It is always easier to relax conformance requirements than to strengthen them. > In my opinion the *opposite* is the case. I see broad agreement that > the conformance requirements are too strict i don't see broad support - i see disagreement -jeff > and should be relaxed in future or in other words focus on SCA > assembly model and don't require support for specific implementation > types. The only question now from my point of view is whether > certain form/ requirements on a document, describing how a > proprietary implementation type maps into SCA's assembly model and > provided by an SCA runtime implementer, should be defined and if how > would they look like. The same for the test suite and license. > > So I see broad agreement on *what* we want to achieve and > discussions on the form, the *how*. > Sanjay's last proposal is just to do the first step without trying > to define every bit of *how* upfront, see which practices proved > themselves and were well received by the community and only in the > next step set the requirements details in stone. > This sounds like a fine evolutionary approach to me. Definitely > better than do nothing and provide something in 2-3 years. > > In addition to what Sanjay described I'd also like the idea to > release the documents started by Jeff Estefan / Mike Edwards as a > recommendation / guideline in the first step. > > Another question before we continue the compromise discussions: Did > somebody had a chance to look through the documents submitted by > Jeff Estefan / Mike Edwards? > These metaspecs were very probably extracted on the basis of > existing SCA specs & test suites, so I'd suppose those comply > already with the metaspecs without requiring much effort to make > them do so. This would minimize extra work and delay in the 1.1 cycle. > > Just my 2c, > Philipp > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:57 PM >> To: Jeff Mischkinsky >> Cc: Martin Chapman; Eric Johnson; Estefan, Jeff A (3100); OASIS >> Assembly >> Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to >> Sanjay's >> Proposal >> >> >> Hi Jeff, >> >> - What is wrong in starting with a baseline set of requirements >> that are >> intentionally less stringent and tightening them later after ensuring >> some traction and experience with the technology. I think it is a >> good >> compromise for us (the SCA TCs) to define a baseline conformance >> (e.g. >> in terms of adherence to the language-neutral assembly and policy >> specs) >> in 1.1 and let the market-demand drive the next set of conformance >> requirements (e.g. requirements on the language and binding specs). >> >> - It is not uncommon to tighten requirements in subsequent >> revisions of >> an initial body of work. What was all the profiling work under WS-I >> about? Now don't say that ws-i did not work out and the profiling >> model >> itself is invalid. Sure, it wasn't a lot of fun but I am not sure why >> you would conclude that it is impossible to tighten requirements >> later. >> In fact, it might be the right practical move in many cases. >> >> - If we go by your approach of first imposing tight requirements and >> relaxing them later, please explain how the proposal would look >> like? By >> closing 132/149 with no action, we are essentially closing the door >> for >> other implementation types to implement and claim conformance with >> SCA >> 1.1. There is just no scope for tightening or loosening the >> requirements >> in this scenario. >> >> By lowering the bar and inviting more entrants in the game now, I >> think >> we will be making the value proposition of the SCA standard more >> attractive to the user community. I guess vendors will most likely >> jump >> through any hoops such as adopting a new version with tighter >> requirements because their customers are asking them to do so (and >> not >> because a certain TC is demanding something). >> >> Are we worrying too much about how a certain vendor(s) may abuse the >> conformance requirements as opposed to focusing more on how the >> technology can be made more attractive for the user community (by >> inviting broader vendor support)? >> >> Best wishes, >> Sanjay >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:23 AM >> To: Patil, Sanjay >> Cc: Martin Chapman; Eric Johnson; Estefan, Jeff A (3100); OASIS >> Assembly >> Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to >> Sanjay's Proposal >> >> >> On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Patil, Sanjay wrote: >> >>> >>> The 132 and 149 issues have been repeatedly raised against 1.1. As I >>> understand the essence of these issues is to point out that the >>> current >>> conformance requirements are unnecessarily prohibitive for >>> implementing >>> and claiming conformance with the SCA standard, under certain (quite >>> valid, I believe) circumstances. I think it is in the interest of >>> the >>> community supporting the SCA standard to invite a broader set of >>> implementations (let us face it - we are having hard time to meet >>> our >>> own exit criteria of having two conformant implementations!). I >>> don't >>> think that the risk of opening the door and allowing others who are >>> prepared to implement only a subset of the specifications to also >>> claim >>> conformance is that high (at least not to the extent that would >>> justify >>> closing down 1.1 with strict conformance requirements). >>> >>> If we are concerned about the potential delay to the 1.1 schedule >>> for >>> resolving the issue in an appropriate manner (by standardizing the >>> precise requirements on other implementation types, their test >>> suites, >>> restructuring the current standard C&I specifications, etc), how >>> about >>> we do the following :- >>> a> Relax the requirements in 1.1 so that other implementation types >>> can >>> also claim conformance (on the lines of my original proposal [1]) >>> b> Promote adoption of SCA 1.1 in the industry - gain some practical >>> input on the standard, conformance requirements, etc, from the user >>> community >>> c> Continue working on a cleaner and better solution for the >>> conformance >>> requirements in 1.2 (with the modified proposal along with the >>> attachment documents submitted by Jeff Estefan [2] as the starting >>> point) >> >> I don't think this is a compromise. >> >> The problem with this approach is that it goes in the wrong >> direction... >> >> It is always possible to relax a requirement, but it is virtually >> impossible in the real world to tighten a requirement because you >> invalidate existing things that previously were conformant. >> >> So from my POV this proposal gives us is the worst of all possible >> worlds. >> >> oh, and how will you ever get anyone onto 1.2 if the requirements are >> stricter? >> >> cheers, >> jeff >> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Sanjay >>> >>> [1] >>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200910/msg00047.html >>> [2] >>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201004/msg00065.html >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:35 PM >>> To: Patil, Sanjay >>> Cc: Martin Chapman; Eric Johnson; Estefan, Jeff A (3100); OASIS >>> Assembly >>> Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to >>> Sanjay's Proposal >>> >>> >>> On Apr 27, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Patil, Sanjay wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I also agree that these should be metaspecs and our own C&I >>>> specifications (and the associated test suites) should be their >>>> first instances. >>> +1 (assuming we undertake this work) >>> >>>> Does this mean we will have to reformat the existing C&I specs? >>> >>> I would hope not, but i guess it would depend upon the final form of >>> the new metaspec. BTW: i would hope that having to reformat the >>> existing C&I specs would not be used as an argument for doing >>> something quick and dirty in formulating the metaspec simply because >>> it would delay 1.1 too much if we did. >>> >>>> Does this mean we are signing up for a lot of new work? >>> >>> yes. I don't see it could possibly be otherwise - not if we want >>> to do >>> a proper job. >>> >>>> I guess these are some good questions. The good news is that we >>>> have >>>> some drafts for the metaspecs to look at and do some practical >>>> evaluation of the work involved, its value, etc. I don't think >>>> simply postponing the resolution to 1.2 on the grounds of too- >>>> much- >>>> work-not-enough-time is a good idea. IMHO, we should reopen the >>>> issue (against 1.1) and get some real data in front of the TC >>>> before >>>> deciding the final fate of this issue. Otherwise we may end up >>>> wasting a lot of time on several meta-discussions! >>> >>> I do agree that if we don't vote yes/no for re-opening against 1.1 >>> at >>> the next meeting we will be wasting (even) more time on meta- >>> discussions. >>> >>> I don't follow your conclusion that why discussing this in the 1.2 >>> timeframe would end up wasting a lot of time. >>> >>> cheers, >>> jeff >>> >>>> >>>> From: Martin Chapman [mailto:MARTIN.CHAPMAN@oracle.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:53 AM >>>> To: Eric Johnson; Estefan, Jeff A (3100) >>>> Cc: OASIS Assembly >>>> Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to >>>> Sanjay's Proposal >>>> >>>> Not the Magna Carta? Now that sounds like Monty Python Spec text. >>>> >>>> As some may know the Board has been trying to propose a different >>>> document track to cover non specs. >>>> Unfortunately the ugly IPR issue seems to be getting in the way - >>>> I've personally been on this case for almost 4 years now! >>>> >>>> FWIW I tend to agree with Eric, that these documents should be >>>> meta- >>>> specs, and as such will not really fall under this new category. >>>> >>>> Martin. >>>> >>>> From: Eric Johnson [mailto:eric@tibco.com] >>>> Sent: 27 April 2010 18:06 >>>> To: Estefan, Jeff A (3100) >>>> Cc: OASIS Assembly >>>> Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to >>>> Sanjay's Proposal >>>> >>>> For the two documents in question to be part of the conformance >>>> criteria, calling them "templates" seems insufficient. >>>> >>>> I expect, rather, that we would treat these documents as "specs >>>> about specs". That is, they should define what an implementation >>>> specification MUST include, what it SHOULD include, and what it >>>> MUST >>>> NOT include (although I'm puzzling over what appropriately fits >>>> into >>>> the last category - "MUST NOT include the text of the Magna >>>> Carta."? ). Only when a spec satisfies those criteria can someone >>>> then turn around and claim that their implementation type is >>>> conforming. >>>> >>>> Of course, as we discussed on the call today, it is really up to >>>> the >>>> TC to decide how we approach this problem, but that's my take. >>>> That's why I prefer opening new issues against 1.2. >>>> >>>> I still think it is useful to talk to Mary or other OASIS staff to >>>> see if this question has arisen before, and how it has been dealt >>>> with. >>>> >>>> -Eric. >>>> >>>> On 04/27/2010 09:34 AM, Estefan, Jeff A (3100) wrote: >>>> Mike, >>>> >>>> As mentioned on today's call, we'll need to ask the assistance of >>>> Mary and perhaps other members of the OASIS staff about this topic, >>>> but I do not see how these templates would need to be elevated to >>>> formal OASIS Specification status because unlike the SCA Assembly >>>> Model specification, which truly is an OASIS spec as it contains >>>> "specification" language, these proposed documents contain >>>> requirements language (in the form of templates) that are intended >>>> to assist the user community with verifying an SCA Runtime's >>>> conformance with a SCA Assembly Model specification. >>>> >>>> Looking over the various OASIS document templates >>> (http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/ >>>> ), I do not see on in place for such a technical work product. >>>> >>>> Raising these documents to full Specification level will most >>>> certainly impede our progress on ratifying the SCA Assembly Model >>>> v1.1 spec and I hope that is not the case, but we certainly need to >>>> find out sooner rather than later. >>>> >>>> Would you like me to reach out to Mary and the OASIS staff about >>>> this or would you and/or Martin as TC co-chairs prefer to >>>> initiative >>>> the question? Just let me know. >>>> >>>> Cheers... >>>> >>>> - Jeff E. >>>> >>>> From: Mike Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:25 PM >>>> To: OASIS Assembly >>>> Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] REOPEN ISSUES 132 and 149: Update to >>>> Sanjay's Proposal >>>> >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> Since some comments on this thread indicated that some people did >>>> not see that there were a pair of >>>> documents attached to the original email that started the thread, I >>>> have assumed that there have been >>>> some transmission problems and I have posted copies of the >>>> documents >>>> into the OASIS web site. >>>> >>>> They can be accessed here: >>>> >>>> >>> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/3 >>> 7466/sca-assembly-1.1-impl-type-documentation-wd02.odt >>>> >>> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/3 >>> 7467/sca-assembly-1.1-testsuite-adaptation-wd02.odt >>>> >>>> >>>> Yours, Mike. >>>> >>>> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO. >>>> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC. >>>> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great >>>> Britain. >>>> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431 >>>> Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >>>> number 741598. >>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire >>>> PO6 3AU >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Mischkinsky >>> jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com >>> Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware >>> +1(650)506-1975 >>> and Web Services Standards 500 >>> Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9 >>> Oracle >> Redwood >>> Shores, CA 94065 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Jeff Mischkinsky >> jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com >> Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware >> +1(650)506-1975 >> and Web Services Standards 500 >> Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9 >> Oracle >> >> Redwood >> Shores, CA 94065 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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_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_workgroups.php > -- Jeff Mischkinsky jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com Sr. 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]