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: Formated minutes of 2008-09-18 telcon

Thanks to Ashok for scribing.

Title: SCA-BPEL - 2008-09-18




18 SEP 2008


David Booz, (IBM)
Mike Edwards, (IBM)
Dieter Koenig, (IBM)
Martin Chapman, (Oracle Corporation)
Anish Karmarkar, (Oracle Corporation)
Ashok Malhotra, (Oracle Corporation)
Sanjay Patil, (SAP AG)
Najeeb Andrabi, (TIBCO Software Inc.)
Danny van der Rijn, (TIBCO Software Inc.)
Sanjay Patil
Ashok Malhotra


[1]  Approval of minutes
[2]  AI review
[3]  Issue 18
Table of Resolutions
Table of Action Items

Action Items




Scribe: Ashok Malhotra

<Dieter Koenig>
1. Roll Call
2. Appointment of scribe
Scribe list attached below
3. Agenda bashing
4. Approval of Sep 11, 2008 minutes
5. Action items review
a) AI #0021
Martin Chapman - to follow up with Mary to post the CD docs to OASIS repository
Done. Docs uploaded but SCA BPEL NS is not live yet.
b) AI #0045
Martin Chapman - Make a proposal for issue 18
c) AI #0046
Michael Rowley - update JIRA based on revision log at the end of the spec
6. Issue 18 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-18
TITLE- Need to rewrite the SCA-BPEL specifications with RFC-2119
Email discussion:
7. AOB
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 review

AI-21 - Martin to follow up with Mary. Martin communicated with Mary: No response from Mary.
AI-45 - Open still
AI-46 - Mike Rowley not on the call. Still open.

Issue 18

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?
<Dieter Koenig>
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
Martin agrees
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 structure.] [
there are others
<Mike Edwards>
I still think that it is perfectly possible to write test cases for the introspected component type
<Mike Edwards>
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
<Martin C>
mike, i agree, but dont you do this by looking at what the runtime did or dodnt do
<Mike Edwards>
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)
<Mike Edwards>
the test target is clearly the runtime
Take a stab at my action item and see what happens
<Martin C>
<Mike Edwards>
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
<Mike Edwards>
Anish: the effects of the introspected CT are testable - and that is all that matters
<Mike Edwards>
(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
<Mike Edwards>
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!
<Mike Edwards>
Hey - the LHC as an SCA test runtime - sounds great
Next step?
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
<Mike Edwards>
"total destruction" testing
<Mike Edwards>
Martin will write prose for issue 18
hot off the press: introspected CT behind dark matter and dark energy
Mike E:
Could use the approach we used for Java. 2 sections: one on unannotated POJO and the other on annotated
This is Java issue 55
I have question abt relation between CT side file and introspected CT
<Mike Edwards>
No - complete override should not be allowed
<Mike Edwards>
the BPEL Process is what it is
<Mike Edwards>
effectively, all you can do is restrict
<Mike Edwards>
you can't add a service
<Mike Edwards>
you can't remove an Intent
<Mike Edwards>
What do you mean by "tweak"
<Mike Edwards>
Mike E:
I'm nervous abt changing a service into a reference
<Mike Edwards>
I would not require the side file to reproduce the introspected CT
Side file shd have all the power of BPEL annotation
<Mike Edwards>
but to remove just one service would require the CT to list all the remaining ones
<Mike Edwards>
Yes you do
<Mike Edwards>
- use constraining type
<Mike Edwards>
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.

[End of Minutes]
Formatted on 2008-09-23 at 14:08:46 GMT-7

Minutes formatted by Schreiber, a collection of XSLT stylesheets by Bob Freund modeled after David Booth's scribe

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

[End of Schreiber diagnostic output]

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