Re: [sca-assembly] Any agenda items for tmorrow's SCA Assembly conference call?

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

Jim,

I agree that separation of Asm and Policy is *possible*. I would argue that:
1) it is not desirable,
2) it is not easy (from a spec POV, not from the POV of a particular 
implementation), there is plenty of work involved there.
3) by design, asm and policy are joined at the hip/intertwined.

The only reason they are different specs, done in different TCs, is for 
administrative reasons. The skill set and interest required for 
participating in assembly and policy are/were different. There certainly 
were folks that were interested in both. But enough folks were just 
interested in policy or just asm to make it an administrative problem in 
terms of attendance, quorum etc.

I view asm and policy as a single spec divided into two parts for 
convenience/manageability.

-Anish
--

On 9/16/13 4:01 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
> Ashok,
>
> First, separating Assembly and Policy is possible and it is not hard to
> achieve technically speaking. Fabric3 has already done this as both
> Policy and WS Binding features can be removed from the runtime by simply
> deleting three JAR files. Architecturally, Policy and WS Binding support
> are added to Fabric3 via OSGi-based modularity.This allows for a
> separation of concerns that, in my opinion, should also be reflected in
> the specifications.
>
> Second, we haven't discussed this before with the benefit of actual SCA
> implementation experience. This is an issue that has the support of at
> least Fabric3, Siemens, and TIBCO. It's worthy of discussion and not a
> waste of time.
>
> I'm sorry you feel this topic is not a productive use of your time and
> have nothing to contribute to the technical discussion.
>
> Jim
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Ashok Malhotra
> <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com <mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     We have discussed this before.  SCA Assembly and SCA Policy are
>     intertwined and hard to separate.
>     We also discussed the separation of Assembly from the WS Bindings
>     and, after a long discussion,
>     decided against it.  There is no new news.  Let's not waste our time.
>     All the best, Ashok
>     On 9/16/2013 3:43 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
> >     Hi,
> >
> >     I would like to have an item placed on the agenda to discuss
> >     removing the dependencies on the SCA Policy and SCA Web Services
> >     Binding specifications from the Assembly specification. I have
> >     discussed this already with some TC members but it would be good
> >     to begin wider discussions.
> >
> >     Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >     On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Mike Edwards
> >     <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com <mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>> wrote:
> >
> >         Folks,
> >
> >         Does anyone have agenda items for tomorrow's SCA Assembly
> >         conference call?
> >
> >         Please send any items to the chairs as soon as possible.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >         Yours,
> >
> >         *Mike Edwards*
> >         STSM - Cloud Computing and SOA Standards
> >         Chair UK ISO SC38 mirror committee (Cloud & SOA)
> >         Co-Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC
> >         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >         *Phone:*44-1962-818014 (37248014)| *Mobile:*44-7802-467431
> >         (274097)*
> >         E-mail:*_mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com_
> >         <mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>*
> >         Chat:*Google Talk: mike.edwards.inglenook@gmail.com
> >         <mailto:mike.edwards.inglenook@gmail.com> *
> >         Find me on:*LinkedIn:
> >         http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mike-edwards/4/6b/97b
> >         <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mike-edwards/4/6b/97b>Twitter:
> >         https://twitter.com/open_services
> >         <https://twitter.com/open_services>	
> >         IBM
> >
> >         Mail Point 137, Hursley Park
> >         Hursley, SO21 2JN
> >         United Kingdom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >         IBM United Kingdom Limited
> >         Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
> >         Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
> >         Hants. PO6 3AU
> >         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