OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bindings message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Review of sca-binding-ws-spec-cd02-rev3.pdf


Thanks for reviewing these documents in detail.  I think it would be worth discussing some of these formatting issues, but do we feel that this needs to be done prior to public review?  I think we need to resolve the following issues:

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-74 JMS and JCA binding conformance section insufficient (JMS)
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-75 JMS and JCA binding conformance section insufficient (JCA)
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-76 binding.ws schema uses ##any instead of ##other
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-77 binding.jms schema uses for schema attribute extensibility
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-78 binding.jca schema uses ##any instead of ##other

In addition sorting out editorial problems where the documents are broken, and publish asap after that, ideally on next weeks call - June 25th.  We can then discuss these concerns during the public review period while we get the test assertions/testcase work started.

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

Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB

18/06/2009 08:00

OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
Re: [sca-bindings] Review of sca-binding-ws-spec-cd02-rev3.pdf


Some comments inline...

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To: OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 17/06/2009 18:33
Subject: [sca-bindings] Review of sca-binding-ws-spec-cd02-rev3.pdf

As I'm trying to read through these documents, I find the highlighting of the normative statements is actually quite annoying.  It makes it much harder to read the document.  In addition, I had to force my PDF viewer to no color, because the default "highlight" color with my windowing theme exactly matches the highlight color chosen for the document, and searching for a result in a normative statement would then not show where the search result was found.  My suggestion would be to change the color of the normative text itself to a gray just shy of black, rather than changing the background color of the text.

<mje>I'm probably biased, since this form of marking was started by me.  However, I think that background highlighting is essential - merely changing the font colour is ineffective to the point of uselessness.  We can debate the highlight colour - if this bright yellow is too painful for the eyes, we can choose a more subdued colour.</mje>

Also seems to me that the normative numbering declarations could be superscripted, so that it is easier to read the text and let my eyes skip over the reference numbering.

<mje>This I simply don't agree with. It's fine as it is, in my opinion.</mje>

Those are just my personal preferences, though.

Line 101-103 - sentence is repeated.

Line 207: "WSDL 1.1 message parts can point to an XML Schema element declaration or an XML Schema type."  Mismatched parallelism.  Ought to be "... can point either to an XML Schema element declaration or to an XML Schema type declaration."

Line 219: "Port" --> "port"

Line 265 - 266: "SCA runtime implementations MAY provide additional metadata that is associated with a web service binding."  Unfortunately, this sentence seems so out of context to me, that it is difficult to figure out what it was actually referring to.  Are we talking here about providing additional metadata in the generated WSDL document?  That would push section 2.5 to be section 2.4.1.  However, I think what we really mean here is that we really mean that an SCA binding.ws element might contain additional metadata to help configure non-SCA aspects of a web-services binding.  However, that's not a normative constraint on the runtime, so then I don't get the normative statement.

I think I need to raise an issue for the above.  Am I missing something?

<mje>No, you're not missing anything.  This is a normative statement too far.  It is simply redundant and unecessary.  The schema definition says everything normative here.

I'd change the MAY to a "can" and reduce this to a simple factual statement.</mje>

Line 306: "... web service binding is configured with a policy intent(s) ..." --> "... web service binding is configured with any policy intent ...


Should we swap sections 3 & 4, especially since section 3 makes reference to details specified by section 4?


Line 443-444: Parallelism again: "MUST follow either the rpc-literal or document-literal pattern." --> "MUST follow either the rpc-literal pattern or the document-literal pattern."

Line 461: "of “Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1” [SOAP11] " --> This is an inconsistent reference.  So far as I've discovered, we don't inline the titles of the target of the reference elsewhere, so this should change to just "of [SOAP11]".

<mje>On this point, I have the opposite point of view.  I prefer to spell out the name of the target document in all these locations.  The [xxxx] tag is intended to be a reference link to the place at the top of the document where the location of that referenced document is actually held.  It isn't meant to be a readable part of the document text. </mje>

Thankfully, all but one of the above are editorial...


--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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:

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

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]