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: Bindings TC specs exit criteria


I have to confess to being somewhat bemused by this discussion.  The statement we are aiming to agree on defines what we believe we (the TC) need to do to say that we (the TC) have completed v1.1 of our specs.  The statement does not apply to anyone else, in particular it does not apply to providers of SCA runtimes.  Given that I don't see there is any need for anything which would be considered as "hints" to an SCA runtime provider as to how to qualify.   At most what we need to state is a set of necessary conditions as imposed by the TC charter.  The phrase that is not explicitly covered by the original proposal from the charter is "and demonstrate interoperability and portability as appropriate".  I'm actually not sure why we don't just use the words in the charter...  

I've yet to understand exactly what this statement of exit criteria will establish - does it limit the set of criteria by which an SCA runtime could fail to qualify?  Is it the case that SCA runtimes can ONLY be rejected based on specific evidence of failure to comply with the stated conditions in the exit critera, i.e. failing to comply with a normative statement, failure to interoperate or failure to be portable? Would any other concern not considered valid grounds for rejection - e.g. "all functions work but each message takes 1 hour to process" or "every invocation results in a pop-up advert for the vendors ESB suite", "error messages are only available in Esperanto" cannot be considered grounds for rejection?

Based on the charter all we really need to say is that we must consider interoperation and portability in our assessment of an SCA runtime (or WSCB client/server). My suggestion therefore for updated wording for the JMS binding would be as follows:

The Concrete Exit Criteria for the SCA JMS Binding V1.1 specification are that there shall be at least 2 independent SCA runtimes, each of which are compliant with all normative portions of the specification as described in Section 8.2 of the SCA JMS Binding V1.1 specification, and each of which demonstrates interoperability and portability as appropriate."

This wording with the expectation that a candidate would only be rejected on a failure in one of those three areas - although of course as with anything else the TC can choose to bypass/modify this through an adequately supported motion.

Personally, given that there would have to be a TC vote on the implementations I would really prefer us to expend our energy examining and confirming those than wordsmithing this statement.

Regards, Simon

Simon Holdsworth

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]