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: Re: [sca-bpel] Action item: SCA BPEL conformance statements and componentType

Title: [sca-bpel] Action item: SCA BPEL conformance statements and component Type
This is an interesting proposal, but I'd like some time to mull it over and discuss it before we do anything formal on it, especially, since I will be unable to attend the call this morning.


Martin Chapman wrote:
00c301c9141d$2dfb2290$0c40908d@ie.oracle.com" type="cite">

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

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:

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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