[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bpel] [ISSUE 18] - Comments on the Proposed Resolutionfor Issue 18 (Section 2.1 of BPEL Spec)
Mike Edwards wrote: > > Anish, > > Sorry if my contribution was not helpful. Mike, Apologies, if that is how my email came across. That is certainly not what I meant. You contribution was *indeed* helpful (it always is). I just wanted to avoid confusion, like what we had last time, on this week's call, regarding revision numbers etc -Anish -- > > I have since sent another contribution to the debate as a response to > Martin's email. In that, I present a view > which allows us to have clear conformance statements without requiring > us to talk about the process of > "generating" the componentType. > > I think that this new approach is likely to work out better - not only > for BPEL but also for all the other language > TCs. The componentType is simply declared - once you have a given > implementation artifact, you have > the componentType. It does not matter which piece of code calculates > it, but any piece of code which uses > a given implementation artifact is required to obey the rules for the > componentType as a whole. > > > 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 > > > *Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>* > > 31/07/2008 00:43 > > > To > Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB > cc > OASIS BPEL <sca-bpel@lists.oasis-open.org> > Subject > Re: [sca-bpel] [ISSUE 18] - Comments on the Proposed Resolution for > Issue 18 (Section 2.1 of BPEL Spec) > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > I wish you had used revision 5 and not revision 9, per my email at > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200807/msg00033.html > This was a source of some confusion on the call last week. > > Although, I don't think this is necessarily a problem wrt discussing > issue 18, given that the text in question that you are commenting on is > mostly unchanged between the two versions. But for those who were > confused about this last week, please be cognizant of this fact. > > On your comment in section 2.1.2 can you please raise a separate issue > for this? Don't want to bundle this with 18. > > My comments on your comments: > > 1) +1 to all the editorial fixups (s/sca:service/sca-bpel:service/ > s/sca:reference/sca-bpel:reference/ s/specifies// insertion of 'an' and > 'attribute). > > 2) WRT change from 'SCA runtime MUST generate ...' to '... MUST be > generated': > > This change removes the conformance target in the conformance statement. > IMHO, a conformance statement must specify a target. The target > addresses the question 'who'. A conformance stmt must answer the > question 'who', 'what' and the level of conformance. > > For example: A WIDGET MUST be round in shape > who: WIDGET > what: round in shape > conformance level: mandatory > > A WIDGET MAY be made of metal > who:WIDGET > what: made of metal > conformance level: optional > > As a resolution of issue 15 (http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-15) we > agreed on various conformance targets. I would like to see appropriate > targets used in conformance statements. It makes testing/compliance much > easier IMHO. > > I would go further and suggest the following rules for our conformance > statements: > > 1) Each conformance statement must contain *exactly one* target. > 2) Each conformance statement must contain *exactly one* RFC 2119 keyword. > 3) The target in a conformance statement must be capitalized. This makes > it clear what the target is. I'm suggesting this as a typographic > convention. It won't change the meaning of the sentence, but in compound > sentences, it makes things clearer. > > Here is a WS-I Basic Profile requirement example > (http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1_2(WGAD).html#R2724): > > ----- > R2724 If an INSTANCE receives an envelope that is inconsistent with its > WSDL description, it SHOULD generate a soap:Fault with a faultcode of > "Client", unless a "MustUnderstand" or "VersionMismatch" fault is generated. > ----- > > Basic profile has targets such as: instance, description, envelope. > Since all those words are used in the above requirement, having a > typographical convention about the target makes it readable. > > -Anish > -- > > Mike Edwards wrote: > > > > Folks, > > > > I got the issue number wrong in my original post: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > *Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB* > > > > 25/07/2008 16:12 > > > > > > To > > "OASIS BPEL" <sca-bpel@lists.oasis-open.org> > > cc > > > > Subject > > [sca-bpel] [ISSUE 30] - Comments on the Proposed > Resolution for Issue > > 30 (Section 2.1 of BPEL Spec) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > Here is a marked up version of the proposed resolution of Issue 30, > > based on CD-01-Rev9: > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope that things are self explanatory - I removed statements talking > > about "the SCA runtime MUST..." > > since it is better to write in a more general fashion that can be taken > > to apply to design time tools as well > > as a runtime. > > > > > > You will notice that I think there is a new issue lurking in section > > 2.1.1 - I'd appreciate comments in relation to that. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > / > > / > > > > /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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > [attachment "sca-bpel-1.1-spec-cd-01-rev9-MJEComments.doc" deleted by > > Mike Edwards/UK/IBM] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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: > > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > / > > / > > > > /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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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: > > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > / > / > > /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]