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] [ASSEMBLY-257] Global domain channels creationinconsistent with pattern established by definitions.xml - Proposal to Closewith No Action

I believe that the previous discussion we had on 257 brought out a comment along the following lines:
  1. services and references are also deployed as part of composites and can be deployed to the root of the domain, thus causing name conflicts, so in that regard, global domain channels are similar to existing constructs.
With respect to #1, I looked at absolutely every normative statement I could find, and I didn't find any normative statement that requires uniqueness amongst the names of the services or references deployed to the root of a domain (if I'm wrong, please let me know.) For me, at least, then, the comparison with services and references doesn't hold, because global domain channels will have name collisions, as is intended by their "global" nature.

In addition, as I asserted when raising the issue, the life-cycle of a global domain channel differs from the life-cycle of a service or reference, insofar as undeploying a contribution that defines a service only breaks references to said service, whereas undeployment of a GDC will affect all consumers and producers of said GDC.

I believe the issue is still relevant, and that we should do one of the following:
  • GDC deployment should be separated from composites, and move into definitions.xml
  • Add some flag to the composite that specifically flags whether or not it can be deployed directly to the domain
  • Add a flag to individual channel declarations indicating whether they can become "global", or whether they remain private even when the composite in question is deployed directly to the domain.

On 8/22/11 9:56 PM, Mike Edwards wrote:
OFEA6E7630.40CC7790-ON802578F4.006D495E-802578F4.006D96B9@uk.ibm.com" type="cite">

As discussed at the Assembly TC meeting of 16th August, there is a proposal to Close with No Action Issue # 257.

This will come up for discussion at the TC meeting of 23rd August as the first 1.2 Spec item.

This email is sent in accordance with the wishes of the TC meeting of 16th August to give warning as to the
direction that will be taken in relation to this issue.

Yours, Mike

Dr Mike Edwards  Mail Point 137, Hursley Park
STSM  Winchester, Hants SO21 2JN
SCA, Cloud Computing & Services Standards  United Kingdom
Co-Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC  
Chair UK ISO SC38 mirror committee (Cloud & SOA)  
IBM Software Group  
Phone: +44-1962 818014  
Mobile: +44-7802-467431 (274097)  
e-mail: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com  

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]