Agenda - accepted as posted
No objections to adopting both sets of minutes
Resolution: Minutes of 20101-10-12 accepted w/o
Resolution: Minutes of 20101-10-19 accepted w/o
id=2010-09-22-3 status=pending owner="Anish" Produce concrete proposal for ASSEMBLY-241 based on directional resolution in
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
a) Public Review of Test Suite Adaptation and Implementation Type Documentation Requirements for SCA Assembly Model v1.1
...considered before, but people not happy with wording - rewritten
...Summary - No appropriate location for eventType declarations
Need a "pointer" to schema location from contributuions - ala schema - use a separate file for eventTypes
...can see eventTypes being defined outside contributions (either inside or outside domain)
at the very least we need something like a .evd extension
and maybe evdLocation attribute, but not much esle
Currently no way to specify anything about eventTypes
Thought we'd agreed to put in definitions file?
No - that's the point!
Motion: m=MikeE s=EricJ Open ASSEMBLY-246
No furhter discussion - No objections
Resolution: Open ASSEMBLY-246 w/o
ASSEMBLY-227 next but no activity so will skip
Have discussed for some time - would like to get some sort of direction from TC
...current proposal allows any IDL as long as it's the SAME on both ends of wire
...thinking of new pproposal ...
...Can allow any IDL's as long as they map to some COMMON IDL and that mapping is compatible
...(Not necessarily WSDL 1.1)
How is common IDL defined - how to decide what to use?
Don't think we can define that
...proposing that runtime may have knowledge of possible mappings and can choose
But then can't predict whether application will run on different runtimes
But do we want to force interfaces to be declared incompatible if there's not good mapping to WSDL 1.0?
That's not the question - what IDL do we use?
Thought we wanted to require mapping to WSDL to ensure interoperation
...but as pointed out current spec does not say this
To answer Mikes' question - mapping would be implementation defined
...possible that an application could work on on runtime and not on another
...developer would need to check runtime documentation
...I think increased compatability WITHIN runtime is preferable to increased portability BETWEEN runtimes
Requiring mapping to WSDL raises possibiliy of false +ve and false -ve for compatability checks
OK with same IDL on each end but not with using arbitary one depending on runtime
i'll type my response to Eric here, rather than get in the Q, which is getting longer: Eric, I agree with you wrt false +ve/-ve.
That is a compromise to get to a common IDL (WSDL 1.1) -- which would be the lowest common denominator
currently we define compatibility is such a way that already allows for false +ve/-ve
Vendor could support Eric's idea, but should be outside standard and not "accommodated" in spec
sounds good to me
Compromise - Can't map any two IDL's to a third and claim compatible
would (either of) the interface specs say that there is such a mapping?
...could allow IDL on one end to map to the other IDL (or WSDL)
couldn't that be defined in the spec for <interface.foo>?
Anish: I would be OK if the spec for <interface.foo> defined the mapping
...runtime would have to decide on what mapping to use
Mapping for interfaces should be portable IFF the interface is support by runtime
Mapping should be portable between runtimes - otherwise not part of spec
Note Diane Jordan for role
Would be happy to make another proposal but need a direction from TC
Anish Karmarkar, Diane Jordan
Bob - my condolences
Mike exhorts people to thrash out ASSEMBLY-235 on list
;-) nicely put Eric
Meeting adjourned 9:00AM PDT
NP - I should be able to get the minutes out later today
...Tools aren't completely working but far enough to tweak the o/p by hand where needed
Schreiber diagnostics output
[Delete this section before publishing the minutes]
final validation: Date not specified, the date '2010-10-26' 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 85 input lines
edits: Schreiber found the following text-edit commands:
edits: Line 57: s/WSDL 1.0/WSDL 1.1/
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 25: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-246'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 49: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-235'
edit-substitute: command on line 57 succeeded, changed line 56 from 'WSDL 1.0' to 'WSDL 1.1'
edit-delete: Line 57 was deleted
citation-detection-scribed: Line 113: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'Meeting adjourned 9'
system: Transformer: SAXON 126.96.36.199
[End of Schreiber diagnostic output]