Bindings TC specs exit criteria

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

Folks,

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