[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] Fwd: [sca-assembly-comment] Ballot closure
TC Members, Jim reminded me that Fabric 3 did in fact make a declaration wrt passing the Assembly test suite: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201108/msg00026.html This was accepted by the TC: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201108/msg00047.html However this was only for assembly, so policy, a language (presumably java) and bindings.ws are absent. The Assembly spec requires conformance to these other specs which why I assume the TC did not feel comfortable saying that there exists to fully compliant SCA Assembly implementations. Martin. >-----Original Message----- >From: Eric Johnson [mailto:eric@tibco.com] >Sent: 19 February 2013 18:46 >To: Martin Chapman >Cc: OASIS SCA Assembly >Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Fwd: [sca-assembly-comment] Ballot closure > >Thanks for the follow-up. > >Eric. > >On 2/19/13 10:34 AM, Martin Chapman wrote: >> >> Eric, >> >> Have only just seen (and forwarded) the email from Jim sent to the >> sca-comment list. >> >> As far as I can tell Fabric 3 has not formally started conformance wrt >> passing test suites etc. >> >> I know there were some informal statements for Jim over a year ago, >> but at that time it was not formal and it wasn't clear what spec >> coverage there was (assembly, policy, java, binding, etc) >> >> Myself and Mike will follow up. >> >> Martin. >> >> *From:*Eric Johnson [mailto:eric@tibco.com] >> *Sent:* 19 February 2013 18:01 >> *To:* OASIS SCA Assembly >> *Subject:* [sca-assembly] Fwd: [sca-assembly-comment] Ballot closure >> >> One of my OASIS-involved colleagues indicated that he hadn't seen this >> note from Jim Marino. >> >> Can someone please clarify? Has Fabric 3 publicly stated conformance, >> and that was simply lost in the email flood that we all have to deal >> with? Or is there some formal step that we need to prod Jim to follow >> through on? >> >> Have either of the chairs followed up with Jim to clarify? >> >> >> Eric. >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> >> *Subject: * >> >> >> >> [sca-assembly-comment] Ballot closure >> >> *Date: * >> >> >> >> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:55:50 +0100 >> >> *From: * >> >> >> >> Jim Marino <jim.marino@gmail.com> <mailto:jim.marino@gmail.com> >> >> *To: * >> >> >> >> <sca-assembly-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> >> <mailto:sca-assembly-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> >> >> Hi, >> >> It was brought to my attention that the TC is considering closing. >> >> This caught me by surprise, particularly as it was asserted that there >> is only one active implementation, which I assume to be Apache >> Tuscany. Fabric3 (www.fabric3.org <http://www.fabric3.org>) also >> conforms to the Assembly TC and has active plans to claim conformance >> to other specifications. >> >> Given the breadth of the specifications, conformance requires a >> significant time investment. >> >> Closing the TCs down would derail the investment various runtimes have >> made in this effort. In addition, closing the specifications would >> hurt the industry in general as no standards exist that cover the same >> space as SCA. >> >> Is the only issue prompting a ballot for closure that lack of two >> conformant implementations? >> >> Jim >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]