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: FW: [sca-assembly-comment] Fwd: [sca-assembly] Fwd: [sca-assembly-comment] Ballot closure


 

 

From: Jim Marino [mailto:jim.marino@gmail.com]
Sent: 20 February 2013 00:06
To: sca-assembly-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sca-assembly-comment] Fwd: [sca-assembly] Fwd: [sca-assembly-comment] Ballot closure

 


I meant for this to go to the entire list as well...

 

Jim

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim Marino <jim.marino@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Fwd: [sca-assembly-comment] Ballot closure
To: Martin Chapman <MARTIN.CHAPMAN@oracle.com>

All,

 

Even though Fabric3 has plans for conformance to those other specifications, we should consider letting each specification stand on its own. This is technically possible with very little effort and also benefits end-users. 

 

For example, a recent low-latency application we built on Fabric3 ran into technical objections at the outset when the chief architect learned that it would use SCA. Fortunately, his objection was based on the incorrect assumption that SCA "required" the use of Web Services, which is a non-starter for performance reasons. We were able to correct this assumption but having the specifications distinct would have avoided the problem altogether. The bottom line is that in my experience users find Assembly extremely valuable, only parts of policy useful (e.g. transactions, security) and Web Services only relevant for specific interop or legacy integration cases.

 

I have heard arguments in the past that separating the specifications would severely hinder portability. In response, I would like to point out that SCA applications are portability in a extremely constrained sense so the practical impact of separating the specifications would be minimal. For example, there is no specified way for an SCA application to accesses a database.

 

Martin, is Oracle willing to consider decoupling the specifications? If not, will they consider helping with parts of SCA conformance? Fabric3 and Tuscany have already signed up for this.

 

Jim

 

 

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Martin Chapman <MARTIN.CHAPMAN@oracle.com> wrote:

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
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]