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: NEW ISSUE: Is the 'MUST' in section 2.1.2 needed?

Title: is the 'MUST' in section 2.1.2 needed?

Target: SCA BPEL C&I

This issue came up as a result of discussion of test assertion SBL-TA-2012.
The test assertion, which is based on SBPEL2014, is not really testable. 
OR to be more precises perhaps could be testable for some corner cases, 
which the SCA BPEL TC (very likely) is not going to test.
The problem is that the requirement states that the binding configured 
must know the identity of the partner as soon as the PL becomes active. 
It is not clear how that would happen for the bindings that we define. 
It seems to assume that the binding and the port associated with the 
binding is visible only to other SCA references. It is not clear why/how 
this would be true.
A related minor issue is that it talks about the 'identity' of the 
partner. Does it really mean 'identity' or the 'location'? The 
parenthetical statement seems to indicate that it is the location, not 

Two possible solutions:
1) If this is indeed a corner case which we want to enable but not test, 
we could s/MUST/SHOULD/
2) If this is a corner case that we don't intend to test nor do we see 
it serve a useful purpose then we should just get rid of section 2.1.2


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