Attendance - 7 out of 19 - quorate
Approval of minutes
Minutes from last meeting approved
Resolution: Minutes of 2008-09-11 located at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200809/msg00011.html approved
AI-21 - Martin to follow up with Mary. Martin communicated with Mary: No response from Mary.
AI-46 - Mike Rowley not on the call. Still open.
Martin reviews what he wrote.
We looked at all the conbinations of things that may or may not exist.
Case 1 - Simple BPEL process, what's the component type
Case 2 - Extended with SCA extenstions
Case 3 - You have a CT side file that modifies what the component type looks like
No term for introspected or effective or derived CT. Need to define term.
After deployement what does effective CT mean?
just looked at sca-j - there are several places talking about an "implied component type" - might be something that should
be consistent across specs
This is not so much abt conformance as rules == BPEL must look like this to get a good CT file.
We shd have some grammatical productions that say what the rules are
Perhaps in a separate section well marked
here is an example from the XML spec:
[Definition: A software module called an XML processor is used to read XML documents and provide access to their content and
I still think that it is perfectly possible to write test cases for the introspected component type
clearly those testcases use Assembly + BPEL, but I don't see a way of avoiding Assembly in any testcase
Clearly separate definitions from conformance criteria
mike, i agree, but dont you do this by looking at what the runtime did or dodnt do
you define a BPEL process and a composite using that process as an implementation and expect it to either run successfully
or not, depending on the testcase involved (+ve or -ve test)
the test target is clearly the runtime
Take a stab at my action item and see what happens
the overall combination of Assembly + BPEL impl is what gets tested
mike, the test target will always be the runtime. one can't never say that your introspected CT was non-conformant
Let's look at yr proposal in this TC first before taking it to Assembly
Anish: the effects of the introspected CT are testable - and that is all that matters
(I am reminded of quantum theory in that statement)
i think we are agreeing. the effects are testable. the artifact is not.
Having the BPEL file as a conformance target does not tell us what to do if it not a valid SCA file
We could say SCA file or SCA Bpel file
A simple statement in the BPEL spec along the lines: IF the BPEL process document is invalid (wrt the schemas) THEN the runtime
must reject it
or MUST not deploy the component/composite that uses an implementation that points to the bpel process
Mike, should we test the SCA specs by injecting them into the Large Hadron Collider?
It may find the specs impenetrable!
Hey - the LHC as an SCA test runtime - sounds great
you have to collide two composites at a speed close to that of light to split it into components and examine if the component
points to the bpel process
I have AI to rewrite section 2.1
Danny van der Rijn: LHC is a C&I
may be the introspected CT is the 'god' particle
"total destruction" testing
Martin will write prose for issue 18
hot off the press: introspected CT behind dark matter and dark energy
Could use the approach we used for Java. 2 sections: one on unannotated POJO and the other on annotated
I have question abt relation between CT side file and introspected CT
No - complete override should not be allowed
the BPEL Process is what it is
effectively, all you can do is restrict
you can't add a service
you can't remove an Intent
What do you mean by "tweak"
I'm nervous abt changing a service into a reference
I would not require the side file to reproduce the introspected CT
Side file shd have all the power of BPEL annotation
but to remove just one service would require the CT to list all the remaining ones
Yes you do
- use constraining type
see the words in the Assembly spec about constraining type
yes, indeed u can with a contraining type. let me think about it. hadn't realized that
This is really an Assembly TC issue.
Schreiber diagnostics output
[Delete this section before publishing the minutes]
statistics: Schreiber found 114 input lines
edits: Schreiber found no text-edit commands
command-scribe: Line 1: Ashok Malhotra recognized
command-scribe: Schreiber detected that this section was scribed online
citation-detection-irc1: Line 19: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 27: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 30: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 43: Check for possible unrecognized nick '6. Issue 18 http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 46: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'Email discussion'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 47: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 48: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'http'
system: Transformer: SAXON 18.104.22.168
[End of Schreiber diagnostic output]