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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bpel message

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

Subject: Action item: SCA BPEL conformance statements and component Type

Myself and Anish had a chat about conformance targets and component types. Here's a summary and


WRT component type (CT) there are three cases:

1) There is no CT side file and there aren't any SCA extensions in the 
BPEL process
2) There is no CT side file and there are SCA extensions in the BPEL process
3) There is a CT side file.

In case (1), the default rules that we define for the introspected CT 
kick in. The introspected CT is the effective CT.
In case (2), the default rules in conjunction with our extension rules 
specify what the effective CT will be.
In case (3), the introspected CT is merged/overridden with/by the side 
file to provide the effective CT.

SCA has the following as conformance targets (relevant to issue 18):

a) component type side files
b) composite files
c) SCA runtime

We think we should restrict the conformance statements to these targets 
and not create new conformance targets that aren't physical artifacts 
that you can point to.

We would like to propose that

1) In the assembly spec we define a term 'effective CT' (or something 
like that -- the name isn't important). There is already issue 36 [1] 
filed in Assembly TC that is meant to address how the CT side file 
relates to introspection (subset/override) and essentially what the 
'effective CT' will be. In addressing that issue we can define precisely 
how the effective CT is calculated from the side file and the 
introspected CT, and we can complete the conformance statements 
about the relationships between the conformance targets (comonent type side files, 
composite file, and implementations)

2) In the assembly spec, we should have conformance statements that 
applies to the SCA runtime which say what the runtime MUST/MUST NOT do 
given an effective CT.
For example, it would talk about the fact that all services that are 
part of the effective CT must be enabled/deployed/made available by the 

3) In the bpel spec we should define what the introspected CT/default 
rules are. These would be definition/rules. Not conformance statements. 
The bpel spec or any other impl spec will not contain conformance 
statements wrt CT, only rules/assertions.

4) In the bpel spec we should have conformance statement about the BPEL 
process. For example: Both sca:service and sca:reference attributes MUST 
NOT be present on the same partnerlink in a SCA BPEL process. 
These are the rules to produce a valid introspected CT; violate these rules in your source, 
and you have an non-compliant source. 

In effect, the implementation specs specify (i) rules for introspection 
and extensions and (ii) conformance statements that apply to 
implementation sources (such as BPEL process). And assembly spec 
specifies (i) how effective CT is calculated and (ii) conformance 
statements on SCA runtime wrt what it does with the effecttive CT.

[1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-36

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