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: Raw chat log of 2009-04-23 telcon

anish: Agenda --

anish: 1. Roll Call

2. Appointment of scribe
Scribe list attached below

3. Agenda bashing

4. Approval of Apr 16, 2009 minutes

5. Action Items review
#0062 Sanjay - Reword SBL-TA-SP01 to reflect new tighter spec language

#0063 Anish - Raise an issue regarding section 2.1.2: testability, do we 
need that section, should the 'MUST' be changed to 'SHOULD'


6. New issues
Issue 38: Is the 'MUST' in section 2.1.2 needed?

7. Test assertion doc
Latest Draft v06: 
This draft covers all our 2119 statements. The TAs need to be reviewed, 
comments addressed and approved.
We'll pick up reviewing new TAs added by Anish followed by review of the 
TAs added by Khanderao.

8. Plan for testing

9. AOB

anish: Date: 2009-04-23

anish: Chair: Sanjay Patil

Martin C: Scribe: Martin C

Martin C: Topic: Agenda

Martin C: Approved

Martin C: Topic: Minutes

Martin C: Apr 16, 2009 minutes

Martin C: Minutes approved w/o

Martin C: Topic: Action Items

Martin C: #0062: ongoing

Martin C: #0063 Done

Martin C: Topic: New issues

Martin C: Issue 38: http://osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-38

Martin C: Anish provides overview of issue

Martin C: Anish moves to open issue-38, 2nd Mike R

Martin C: passed w/o

Martin C: discussion on resolution for 38

Martin C: Mike R: deleting the section might not be appropriate, 
something needs to be said

Martin C: Najeeb: how is this defferent then a plain old bpel with 

Martin C: some knowledge is needed

Martin C: Anish: sounds more like a bpel test not an sca one

Martin C: Mike R: if its deployment this is not part of ws-bpel, but sca 
is about deployment so is possible

Martin C: Mike R: leaning towards the SHOULD solution

anish: ScribeNick: Martin C

Martin C: scribe not doing a great job at capturing the discussion

Martin C maybe he wont be asked to scribe again

Martin C: Anish: not convinced it should be a SHOULD as can see how it 
can be tested

Khanderao requests a private chat with you

Martin C: possible direction, keep the MUST but tidy up the 

Michael Rowley: If initializePartnerRole="yes" is specified for a 
partner link then any component that uses this business process as an 
implementation MUST configure the corresponding service to use a binding 
that knows the address of the partner as soon as the partner link 
becomes active (e.g. the binding cannot depend on using a reply-to field 
as the mechanism to initialize the partner role).

Martin C: Action: Maike R to draft a resolution to issue-38 based on the 

Martin C: s/Mai/Mi/

Martin C: Topic: Test Assertions Doc

Martin C: Resume reviewing at 2012

Martin C: 2013

Martin C: Anish goes over 2013

Martin C: no comments

Martin C: 2014

Martin C: Dieter: PartnetLinkTypes have two roles, partnerlinks may have 
either one or both roles specified

Martin C: so usually it is obvious looking at the partnerlink

Martin C: Dieter: might need to go through all the cases of each or both 
roles being present

Martin C: sometime the value is implicit

Martin C: Anish: the sca spec text does cover this

Martin C: this comes from BPEL

Martin C: Maybe a new issue

Martin C: Dieter will look to see if a new issue needs to be raised

Martin C: ACTION: Dieter to look for a new issue wrt parterlinks and 
test assertion 2014

Martin C: 2015

Martin C tick tock

Martin C time up

Martin C: Topic: AOB

Martin C: straggler roll

anish: Done with TA2016

Martin C: Meeting closed

anish: Next week we should start with TA2017

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