Re: [sca-bindings] Some binding issues applied but not marked as such?

[Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com>]

Eric,

Where possible I've indicated in the
JIRA comment for the issue when the resolution has been applied to the
JMS binding but needs applying to other bindings, and also in the update
history at the end of the JMS spec I've indicated whether issues are fully
applied or only the JMS part.  For JMS WD-04, the following issues
are applied but also need applying in the other specs: 13, 30, 32, 38.
 If these have also now been applied in the other relevant specs,
then they should be moved to "applied".

This raises a question of process -
where in the process is there a check that an issue has been applied -
is that an ongoing review obligation on the TC, or is the vote for a CD
also an assertion that the TC agrees that all issues that it says are applied
have been correctly applied?  i say that mainly because once a CD
has been voted for, all revision history up to that point will be removed,
so its much harder to verify the application of resolutions after that
point.

Regards, Simon

Simon Holdsworth
STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK
Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898
Internet - Simon_Holdsworth@uk.ibm.com

Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>

13/08/2008 18:14

To	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	[sca-bindings] Some binding issues applied but not marked as such?

FYI, JIRA currently shows the following issues as applied:

Key	Summary	Status	Created	Updated
BINDINGS-35	Allow topics anywhere that queues can be used	Applied	09/Apr/08	01/Aug/08
BINDINGS-34	Clarify default function selection and data binding behavior	Applied	09/Apr/08	01/Aug/08
BINDINGS-33	Correlation property names are odd, and the space of options is not extensible.	Applied	09/Apr/08	01/Aug/08
BINDINGS-26	JMS binding pseudo-schemas inconsistent with assembly	Applied	14/Mar/08	28/Apr/08
BINDINGS-20	JMS binding URI should follow JMS IRI scheme submitted to IETF	Applied	03/Dec/07	01/Aug/08
BINDINGS-18	Clarify the rules on which queues are used for responses and callbacks	Applied	26/Nov/07	28/Apr/08
BINDINGS-17	Rules for Binding compatibility	Applied	19/Nov/07	02/Apr/08
BINDINGS-16	binding.ws reference to assembly spec for interface mapping is incorrect	Applied	13/Nov/07	02/Apr/08
BINDINGS-12	Are JMS message selectors supported?	Applied	25/Oct/07	28/Apr/08
BINDINGS-10	Rules for WSDL generation create invalid WSDL by using "/" where it is not allowed.	Applied	16/Oct/07	02/Apr/08
BINDINGS-9	Use of wsdli:wsdlLocation does not match WSDL 2.0 specification	Applied	11/Oct/07	02/Apr/08
BINDINGS-8	No bindingType for binding.ws	Applied	05/Oct/07	02/Apr/08
BINDINGS-6	JMS bindingType and conversation intent	Applied	05/Oct/07	28/Apr/08
BINDINGS-5	JMS bindingType and atLeastOne intent overlaps with setting JMSDeliveryMode	Applied	05/Oct/07	28/Apr/08
BINDINGS-3	portType referred to inconsistently throughout specification	Applied	01/Oct/07	02/Apr/08
BINDINGS-1	JMSDeliveryMode, JMSTimeToLive and JMSPriority defined as types different from what the JMS specification uses.	Applied	01/Oct/07	28/Apr/08

Based on the notes in the margins it appears that, at least for the jmsbinding
spec, there may be some issues applied that have not been marked as such. 
#13, #38, for example.  Can the editors clarify?  I think, from
what I see later in the editing notes, that the issues in question may
apply to multiple specs, and thus are only partially applied.

This raises a question for the committee drafts.  Presumably we're
accepting the CD "as-is", but for the JMS spec the issues will
be considered unapplied, even though they have been?

-Eric.


-Eric.

---

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