RE: [sca-assembly] Exit Criteria Proposal

[Martin Chapman <MARTIN.CHAPMAN@ORACLE.COM>]

Regarding 2) and with a Chair's hat on, I don't think we need to build proof into the exit criteria as I assume TC members might actually want to see some proof. We do however need an deterministic way to determine whether the exit criteria has been met, and that IMHO would be via a motion.

Martin.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar
> Sent: 14 June 2011 00:32
> To: sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Exit Criteria Proposal
> 
> [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
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>