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 minutes from 2009-MAY-07 con call

[8:01] anish: 1. Roll Call

2. Appointment of scribe
Scribe list attached below

3. Agenda bashing

4. Approval of Apr 30, 2009 minutes

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

#0066 Anish - open a new issue to make SBPEL2019 as a non-normative statement since it is redundant to SBPEL2020-2022

#0067 Anish - Submit a new issue regarding the use of 'MAY' by SBPEL 2022 and the recursivity of the statement

#0068 Editors - fix the typo "orginalName" in the section 2.3

#0069 Khanderao - SBL-TA-3001: Prerequisite should be about "two or more variable declarations

#0070 Khanderao - SBL-TA-2020: replace the Prerequisite statements a) and b) by the combined statement - "Multiple partner links (defined in different scopes) share the same name".

#0071 Khanderao - SBL-TA-2022: Include 'prerequisite of SBL-TA-2020' as additional prerequisite

#0072 Khaderao - SBL-TA-3002 Update prerequisites a) and c) on the lines of: a) a variable declaration has an sca-bpel property attribute b) a value is provided for the property via component configuration

6. New Issues

a. Issue 40 SBPEL2019 is redundant

b. Issue 41 SBPEL2022 has an incorrect 'MAY' and is not applied recursively

7. Issue Discussion
a) Issue 38: Is the 'MUST' in section 2.1.2 needed?

Email Discussion

b) Issue 39 References to WS-BPEL 2.0 Attributes "myRole" and "partnerRole"

8. Test assertion doc
Latest Draft v06: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200904/msg00028.html
Review TAs added by Khanderao starting at SBL-TA-3003
Review TAs added by Sanjay starting at SBL-TA-SP04

9. Plan for testing
Seeking volunteers to write test cases

10. AOB
[8:01] anish: Date: 2009-05-07
[8:06] anish: scribe: Danny van der Rijn
[8:06] anish: scribNick: Danny van der Rijn
[8:07] Danny van der Rijn: topic:  Approval of minutes
[8:07] Danny van der Rijn: Resolution:  minute approved unanimously
[8:08] Danny van der Rijn: Topic:  AI Review
[8:09] Danny van der Rijn: 62 is pending; 66,67 done; 68 - 72 pending
[8:09] Danny van der Rijn: Topic:  New Issue, Issue 40
[8:09] Danny van der Rijn: SBPEL 2019 is redundant
[8:10] Danny van der Rijn: Motion:  open issue 40 (m: Dieter, s: Najeeb)
[8:11] Danny van der Rijn: resolution: issue 40 open
[8:12] Danny van der Rijn: Motion: To resolve issue 40 as proposed in mail/jira. (m: Dieter, Khanderao)
[8:12] Danny van der Rijn: resolution: motion carries without objection, issue 40 is resolved
[8:12] Danny van der Rijn: Topic:  New Issue, Issue 41 - SBPEL2022 has an incorrect 'MAY' and is not applied recursively
[8:15] Danny van der Rijn: Motion: To open issue 41 (m: Dieter, s: Danny)
[8:15] Danny van der Rijn: Resolution:  Issue 41 is opened with unanimously
[8:18] anish: Danny's proposal -- "If any "_originalName_i" (where N is the number of partnerLinks of name 'originalName', 1 <= i <= N) is already the name of a partner link declaration in the process definition, then the smallest number of additional underscore characters MUST be added at the beginning of all originalNames, to avoid a collision."
[8:20] Danny van der Rijn: Danny:  What exactly are we trying to accomplish?
[8:21] Danny van der Rijn: Anish: originalName corresponds to name across scopes that collide.  N such collisions.  Trying to avoid possibility that _originalName_i is also a name of another partnerLink.
[8:22] Danny van der Rijn: Danny:  across what scope do we add underscores?  originalName collision, or the entire process
[8:27] Danny van der Rijn: anish:  agreement that we need to change MAY to MUST.  need more work on what we're trying to do.
[8:28] Danny van der Rijn: najeeb:  do we need to make it a MUST.  Do we need to define it in a particular way?
[8:29] Danny van der Rijn: anish:  problem I see with that is that the names are important when you configure component in composite.
[8:32] Danny van der Rijn: danny:  componentType is inferred from BPEL file each time, not generated and saved
[8:32] Danny van der Rijn: anish:  what direction do we want to take?  Do we want to fix this to ensure deterministic componentType across all runtimes, or punt it as an edge case?
[8:33] Danny van der Rijn: mikeE:  if you're going to allow it to be an edge case, what would that say to a developer?
[8:41] Danny van der Rijn: action:  Danny to further the issue discussion in email
[8:43] Danny van der Rijn: topic:  test assertions
[8:43] Danny van der Rijn: topic: SBL-TA-3003
[8:45] anish: ACTION: Khanderao change the target of 3003 to CT
[8:47] Danny van der Rijn: topic: SBL-TA-3004
[8:48] Danny van der Rijn: anish:  I don't see why this is a MAY
[8:54] Danny van der Rijn: Action: Najeeb to raise new issue about requirement of multiplicity
[8:54] Danny van der Rijn: topic: SBL-TA-3005
[8:56] Danny van der Rijn: mikeE: the target is too broad.  should be relevant to the predicate.
[8:57] anish: Action: Khanderao to refine the target for 3005
[8:58] Danny van der Rijn: topic: SBL-TA-3006
[8:59] Danny van der Rijn: topic: SBL-TA-3007
[9:01] Danny van der Rijn: mikeE: components don't have componentType - implementations do
[9:01] Danny van der Rijn: anish: exists throughout doc.
[9:02] Danny van der Rijn: anish:  "componentType of the BPEL process" - should be changed throughout
[9:03] Danny van der Rijn: action: anish to fix as above
[9:03] Danny van der Rijn: adjourned

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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