Minutes
Opening
Roll call 14/19 = 73% Quorate
Agenda - accepted as posted
EricW:
My bad sorry - couldn't get them formatted
...will make available prior to next meeting
Action Items
id=2010-09-22-3 status=pending owner="Anish" Produce concrete proposal for ASSEMBLY-241 based on directional resolution in
F2F minutes
id=2010-09-22-8 status=pending owner="EricJ" produce new proposal for ASSEMBLY-227
id=2010-09-22-9 status=pending Raise issue WRT cardinality of channels
id=2010-09-22-10 status=done Add RFC2119 to Event portion of 1.2
id=2010-09-22-11 status=done Define what a binding needs to support for event processing
Administrivia
<Mike Edwards>
Ashok LOA:
<Mike Edwards>
LOA granted
Ashok Malhotra LOA request approved w/o (2010-11-01 to 2010-11-14)
PR finishes 2010-10-30 - No comments received so far
BryanA:
Has CD06 Schema been published?
MartinC:
No - was in a rush to get published before TC process changes went into effect
BryanA:
Also need to tidy up JIRA items
JeffE:
What about other deliverables for 1.1?
MikeE:
All deliverables for 1.1 have been previously approved as CD's
...now waiting for other specs to be availble (Policy, Java, etc)
JeffE:
Changes to spec to incorporate Implementation Type and Test Adaption docs?
MikeE:
Yes - but it's up to TC to decide how handle (substansive) changes
AnishK:
Java spec waiting on POJO tests - expect completion by end of November (but a little optimistic)
Note for roll - EricJ DannyV DianeJ
New Issues
...Where do event type declarations get included?
...currently nowhere appropriate - suggestion is to extend defintitions.xml to allow
AnishK:
Event types should be part of contribution
MikeE:
We can use this format (WS-RA) but where (in SCA) does this get done?
AnishK:
Problem is ASSEMBLY-246 worded assuming a particular solution
...think there's a better way to do this
<anish>
How about changing the title to: How are evenType QName definitions resolved?
EricJ:
Agree with Anish - treat more like WSDL - could be issues (TBD) wrt compatability
<anish>
it would be nice if WSRA would just allow GETing the definitions using HTTP
GilP: FYI - WS-RA can inline event types
MikeE:
Probably wouldn't help - need a dereferenceable defintion for (eg) checking compatability
...OK more to this issue than described with current ASSEMBLY-246
...Will update description of issue and consider again next week
<Mike Edwards>
Mike: I take an action to update the issue and bring it back
MartinC:
Reviews issue - need to add RFC2119 to imported event text
Motion: Open ASSEMBLY-248 m=MartinC s=DannyV
No discussion, no objection
Resolution: ASSEMBLY-248 opened w/o
Open Issues
EricJ:
Had sent proposal to E-mail list but haven't seen any responses
Summary - Currently map to WSDL 1.1 then check
Proposal - Map to a COMMON IDL then check compatability
<anish>
a non-capitized and non-marked 'must'
MikeE:
For LOCAL i/f's spec says "the method of checking compatibility is defined by the specifications which define those interface
types..."
DannyV:
Could have the situation where one part thinks i/f is compatable but another doesn't
MikeE:
Problemis how to decide what IDL is common?
EricJ:
If i/f's use same IDL then no problem - otherwise map to say WSDL 1.1
MikeE:
But how does mapping to WSDL get done?
...if not in the spec then different vendors can map in different ways
MartinC:
Current spec allows other than WSDL 1.1 for IDL and if i/f's use the SAME IDL then that's OK
...however if they are different then have to use WSDL 1.1 to ensure theres a common IDL with standard mapping
Discussion on how to handle when IDL can't be mapped to WSDL 1.1 - whether i/f's should be declared incompatible
AOB
Eric Johnson, Danny van der Rijn, Diane Jordan, Gilbert Pilz
Meeting adjourned 9:02AM PDT
Schreiber diagnostics output
[Delete this section before publishing the minutes]
final validation: Date not specified, the date '2010-10-19' was assumed
final validation: Title not specified, default title 'Oasis SCA-Assembly Teleconference...' was assumed
final validation: Chair not specified, default chair was assumed
statistics: Schreiber found 78 input lines
edits: Schreiber found the following text-edit commands:
edits: Line 96: s/1. Intro/agenda: 1. Intro/
edit-substitute: command on line 96 succeeded, changed line 2 from '1. Intro' to 'agenda: 1. Intro'
command-scribe: Line 3: 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 3: Scribe 'Eric Wells' is recognized by use of the nick 'EricW'
command-scribe: Line 3: EricW's nick 'EricW' has been selected
citation-detection-scribed: Line 35: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-246'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 52: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'GilP'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 57: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-248'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 66: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-235'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 95: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'Meeting adjourned 9'
edit-delete: Line 96 was deleted
system: Transformer: SAXON 9.2.1.2
[End of Schreiber diagnostic output]
Minutes
<Bryan Aupperle>
Martin, Mike may be late.
Opening
MartinC:
Not heared from Mary WRT need for another PR
Agenda accepted as posted
Resolution: Minutes of 2010-10-05 approved w/o
Action Items
id=2010-09-22-3 status=pending owner="Anish" Produce concrete proposal for ASSEMBLY-241 based on directional resolution in
F2F minutes
id=2010-09-22-8 status=pending owner="EricJ" produce new proposal for ASSEMBLY-227
Action: id=2010-09-22-9 status=pending owner=MikeE Raise issue WRT cardinality of channels id=2010-09-22-10 status=pending
id=2010-09-22-10 status=pending Add RFC2119 to Event portion of 1.2
id=2010-09-22-11 status=pending Define what a binding needs to support for event processing
id=2010-10-05-1 status=pending Obtain clarification from TC Admin
id=2010-10-05-2 status=done Edwards to correct the issue text in Jira s/241/242 in Assembly-244
LOA request for Bob Freund for 2010-10-19
resolution LOA request approved for Bob Freund 2010-10-19
Administrivia
a) Public Review of Test Suite Adaptation and Implementation Type Documentation Requirements for SCA Assembly Model v1.1
- started on 31 August
- ends 30 October 2010
New Issues
EricJ:
Raised from discussion at F2F
PeterN:
Really a few underlying issues discussed in E-mail
Anish:
Decided at F2F that channel can only have one binding - if more needed then use extensibility
PeterN:
Haven't seena a real use case for multiple bindings
<anish>
peter, i'm not necessarily advocating for multiple bindings. I was merely trying to reflect what the discussion at the f2f
was -- as I remember it.
DannyV:
Aim was to allow a common extension point so multiple vendors could "agree" for intetop
PeterN:
Then why not include in spec?
Opinion was the we didn't want to get into this now, but allow possibility in future
Motion: Open ASSEMBLY-244 m=EricJ s=DannyV
AshokM:
Objection - we dicided we only should have one so shouldn't allow more
Vote for - 8 against 4 motion passes
Resolution: ASSEMBLY-244 Opened by majority vote
AnishK:
Summarizes issue - added to allow adding WS-RA Event Desciption
DannyV:
Don't want to compel us to use WS-RA Event types (may be delayed, etc)
AnishK:
Doesn't commit us
MartinC:
Issue is not opened and could be resolved with CNA - just
Motion: Open ASSEMBLY-245 m=AnishK s=EricJ
Resolution: ASSEMBLY-245 opened w/o
AnishK:
Think this was Mike's not sure what he was thinking
MartinC:
Suggest passing on this and let Mike clarify next week
...What are the requirements on a binding specifically for event processing
...(i.e. in addition to already defined stuff)
...really to help define (for vendors and SCA Bindings TC)
AnishK:
Why is evnt processin "special" wrt to bindings?
PeterN:
Do we "define" rules for bindings in general?
MartinC:
Yes. E.G. Matching rules - all high level
PeterN:
So we should defeine what we mean by a binding so everyone is on the same page
EricJ:
Proposal doesn't have to be solution - but issue gives a forum to discuss
Motion: Open ASSEMBLY-247 m=EricJ s=DannyV
No further discussion, no objection
Resolution: ASSEMBLY-247 opened w/o
DianeJ: Add to the role please
1.2 Specification Open Issues
(Looking for issues we can discuss)
EricJ:
Sent E-mail yesterday:
EricJ; We should not specifically require WSDL 1.1 as there can be issues
...Instead we should just say "a common IDL" - so could use WSDL 1.1 but others is appropriate
...maybe interfaces are in the same language, but could both be mapped to another IDL
MartinC:
Currently require EVERY interface to map to common IDL (WSDL 1.1)
...if this is relaxed then only checking "pair-wise" so other components may not work together
AnishK:
Thought remotable interfaces had to be mapped to WSDL 1.1
EricJ:
ONLY for checking compatability
...no requirement to provide mapping for USE with interface
<Dave Booz>
i have the leader code should I restart the call?
<MartinC>
well we are out of time
<Eric Johnson>
Time's up - useful discussion to continue next week.
<MartinC>
any stragglers to "squeak"
<anish>
eric, that was useful for me
<MartinC>
stragglers going once......
EricW:
How can stragglers "squeak" when ther's no 'phone?
<MartinC>
they squeak here - a slight bending of the rules
<Dave Booz>
FWIW, you're both right. The spec doesnt mandate a mapping to WSDL but the practical reality of a SOA environment is that
WSDL (and other IDLs) will be prevalent and therefore the need to get compatibility will drag the need to map to WSDL
EricW:
I only heard Diane earlier
<MartinC>
unless REST takes over, and there is no spoon (IDL)
<MartinC>
ok no more for the roll
<MartinC>
roll is fixed. thanks eric W
<anish>
what i recall is that for 1.1 we decided that mapping to wsdl 1.1 was required (for remotable)
<anish>
but as eric points out, the spec doesn't say that
Meeting forcibly adjourned 9:01AM PDT
[End of Minutes]
Formatted on 2010-10-26 at 02:08:23 GMT-7
Minutes formatted by Schreiber, a collection of XSLT
stylesheets by Bob Freund modeled after David Booth's scribe
Schreiber diagnostics output
[Delete this section before publishing the minutes]
final validation: Date not specified, the date '2010-10-12' was assumed
final validation: Title not specified, default title 'Oasis SCA-Assembly Teleconference...' was assumed
final validation: Chair not specified, default chair was assumed
statistics: Schreiber found 98 input lines
edits: Schreiber found the following text-edit commands:
edits: Line 33: s/they use/then use/
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: Scribe 'Eric Wells' is recognized by use of the nick 'EricW'
command-scribe: Line 2: EricW's nick 'EricW' has been selected
citation-detection-scribed: Line 27: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-244'
edit-substitute: command on line 33 succeeded, changed line 32 from 'they use' to 'then use'
edit-delete: Line 33 was deleted
citation-detection-scribed: Line 45: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-245'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 55: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-246'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 59: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-247'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 80: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'DianeJ'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 85: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-235'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 125: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'Meeting forcibly adjourned 9'
system: Transformer: SAXON 9.2.1.2
[End of Schreiber diagnostic output]
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]