Re: [sca-assembly] Concrete Exit Criteria for the SCA Assembly TC- Proposal

[Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>]

Hi Jeff,

On 3/1/11 1:08 PM, Jeff Mischkinsky wrote:
> hi eric,
>   You might be satisfied with one, but the charter requires 2.

Not the way I read it. I picked this language apart in a previous email. 
We require two implementations of all normative portions. So long as the 
conformance criteria don't include the test suite, and therefore it 
isn't normative (during the call, Anish indicated he might raise an 
issue), we don't have to meet the hurdle that two implementations pass 
the test suite.

> Many of us would argue, based on many years of hard won experience, 
> that one is not enough. Two is a bare minimum. My experience is every 
> time you add a new implementation to the mix, you uncover some new can 
> of worms. Clearly there is a law of diminishing returns, i.e. the 
> curve is a pretty steep (something approximating an inverse square 
> law). After you get past 4 or 5, you are normally getting down to 
> uncovering nits in the spec.

All makes sense. I agree that we need more than one implementation of 
each normative detail, but that doesn't say anything about the test suite.

It would be wonderful if *someone* would take an action item to simply 
report back on which normative statements are covered by the test suite, 
and which aren't. And with the list of those that aren't, for the 
implementations that profess to pass the test suite, do they also 
profess to implement said normative statements not covered by the test 
suite?

I'd be willing to chase down this question myself, except that the only 
contacts I know working on the two projects I know to be public about 
conformance (Tuscany & Fabric 3) happen to be in this TC or the bindings 
TC. In other words, someone can probably figure this out much faster than I.

Do Tuscany and Fabric3 pass the assembly test suite?

-Eric

>
> We can argue and disagree all day about the correct number. Given that 
> the charter says at least 2, I think its moot. I don't hear anybody 
> arguing that we should require more than 2 at this time.
> cheers,
>   jeff
>
>
> On Feb 25, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Eric Johnson wrote:
>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> As I said, I think I would be satisfied with one implementation that 
>> passes the test suite. Then again, of the two announced 
>> implementations I'm aware of, I don't know how close the non-Tuscany 
>> one is to passing the test suite. If it passes already, then the 
>> distinction between 0, 1, and 2 is mostly academic, isn't it?
>>
>> -Eric.
>