OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-assembly message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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


Hi Martin,

On Mar 4, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Martin Chapman wrote:

Jim,
 
Thanks for this info. A couple of clarifying questions:
 
1.      Are you planning on supporting bindings.ws, since this is required for SCA Assembly conformance

Yes, but only because it is required by Assembly. Our preference would be not to have Assembly require web services since most of our users are interested in REST and a combination of messaging technologies.

2.      You say the normative sections of assembly have been implemented. Does this include all of the mandatory and optional normative portions?

Although we implement optional normative parts of some specifications, we are not going to implement all optional normative portions unless our users demand it, which they are not at the moment. 

Jim

Martin.
 
From: Jim Marino [mailto:jim.marino@gmail.com] 
Sent: 03 March 2011 20:58
To: OASIS Assembly
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Concrete Exit Criteria for the SCA Assembly TC - Status
 
Hi Eric,
 
Responding for Fabric3:
 
Fabric3 implements ! the normative sections of Assembly, Policy, and JMS.
 
We also believe supporting the normative sections of other relevant SCA specifications would require minimal effort.
 
I have purposely not said anything about the test suites as they are not normative. Instead, Fabric3 has concentrated efforts on normative portions of the specification, optional parts our users request, and proprietary value-added features that extend the specifications. In fact, our users are interested mostly in broad SCA support and value added capabilities such as clustering, XA transactions, and fail-over. No one has ever expressed a concern or desire to run the test suites. 
 
That said, I think the test suites are a good, non-normative resource that vendors may choose to use in order to attain conformance.   
 
Jim
 
On Mar 2, 2011, at 5:24 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:



Folks, 

Eric poses the question: 

"Do Tuscany and Fabric3 pass the assembly test suite?" 

I will answer for Tuscany. 


The answer is:  "Yes" 

I can also say that Tuscany passes the other SCA test suites that are complete at this point, including 
Policy, Web Services, Java (x2), JMS. 


Yours, Mike

Dr Mike Edwards
 Mail Point 146, Hursley Park
<Mail Attachment.gif>
STSM
 Winchester, Hants SO21 2JN 
SCA & Services Standards
 United Kingdom
Co-Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC
 
IBM Software Group
 
Phone: 
+44-1962 818014
 
Mobile: 
+44-7802-467431 (274097) 
 
e-mail:
 
 
 




From:
Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To:
Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Cc:
Date:
01/03/2011 21:51
Subject:
Re: [sca-assembly] Concrete Exit Criteria for the SCA Assembly TC - Proposal
 




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 a! ren'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.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 






 

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





 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]