Re: [sca-assembly] Exit Criteria Proposal

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

[strange: didn't get Ashok's email, but got Eric's reply and see it in 
the archives]

I think we ought to have the exit criteria where the two (or more) 
implementations are conformant therefore each implementation implements 
*all* the mandatory normative statements. That is what the spec is 
asking the implementers to do and the whole idea of the exit criteria is 
to ensure that what we have asked the implementers to do is 
implementable, reasonable, and not an ivory-tower experiment. Sometimes, 
two features when implemented together make things very difficult or 
result in conflicts, or creates issues that don't occur in isolation -- 
and we should know that

There are two more facets of the exit criteria that we are not included 
here:

1) What about optional normative statements:
Granted the Assembly spec does not have this facet any more since 
everything is mandatory. Not sure that is true of all other spec. 
Specifically the policy spec. Whatever we decide here will be picked up 
by other TCs.

2) What evidence is the TC going to accept to satisfy itself that two 
(or more) implementations do in fact implement the spec? The last time 
this was discussed, there was a notion that we ought to ask the 
implementations to run out tests. I believe this is the biggest 
contentious facet of the exit criteria given the differing views amongst 
the TC members.

-Anish
--

On 6/13/2011 3:58 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
> Hi Ashok,
>
> Which is funny, because I read it as "for each normative statement,
> there exist at least two implementations," especially since the work
> "every" doesn't appear in Mike's original. That is, Mike could have
> written: "there shall be at least 2 independent SCA runtimes that are
> compliant with /every/ normative portion of the specification..."
>
> I think Jim's concern is reasonable in theory. In practice, since
> Tuscany can claim conformance, as I understand it, then is this question
> moot?
>
> -Eric.
>
> On 6/13/11 3:43 PM, ashok malhotra wrote:
>> Jim:
>> Mike's proposal says ...
>>
>>> there shall be at least 2 independent SCA runtimes that are compliant
>>> with each normative portion of the specification as described in
>>> Section ...
>>
>> I read this as saying "two independent runtimes, each of which complies
>> with every normative statement in ... "
>>
>> Ashok