RE: [sca-j-jee] Re: [sca-j] SCA JEE status

["Pavlov, Plamen" <plamen.pavlov@sap.com>]

Hi Anish,

This are the raw minutes from the chat room

Plamen: 
1. Roll Call
2. Appointment of scribe
3. Agenda bashing
4. Approval of minutes from previous meeting(s)
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j-jee/download.php/3014
1/SCA%20JEE%20minutes%202008-11-07.pdf
5. Discussion of Next Phone call (28.11.200
6. Action Items
Anish: Action 6.3-1: Line 663 - review the second paragraph, it may not
be correct now. (needs investigation)
Anish: Action 6.3-2: Section 6.3 - check whether something should be
said here about the SCA Policy annotations, are they legal in an EJB?
(needs investigation)
Anish: Action 6.4.1-4: 3rd paragraph - "not behave as expected" requires
a longer more detailed explanation.(needs investigation)
Anish: Action 7.0-2: Section 7.0 - need to analyze the case where an
archive that is itself a contribution has a component which uses
implementation.jee that points to itself. (needs investigation)
Anish: Action 7.1.3-1: Section 7.1.3 - investigate if it is necessary to
map references of Servlets within an EAR. (needs investigation)
Anish: Action 7.2-1: Section 7.2, line 1022 - investigate the use of
implementation.xxx for EJB modules. (needs investigation)
Plamen: Action 5.1.6-1: Section 5.1.6, line 368 - need to specify what
happens if jax-ws-catalog.xml is not present. (needs investigation)
Plamen: Action 6.5-1: Section 6.5 - review the position of section 6.5
in the specification. (needs investigation)
Plamen: Action 7.1.1-2: Section 7.1.1 - go investigate whether "non SCA
enhanced" is properly defined  i.e. what exactly is it that makes the
archive enhanced? (needs investigation)
Plamen: Action 7.1.1-3: Section 7.1.1 & 7.1.2 & 7.1.3 - need to
investigate bullet 2's reference to "Section 6.6", since this section
number is certainly incorrect. (needs investigation)
Plamen: Action 7.1.2-1: Section 7.1.1 & 7.1.2 - investigate the
different mapping algorithms in sections 7.1.1 & 7.1.2. (needs
investigation)
Plamen: Action 7.2-3: Section 7.2 - revisit the example in section 7.2,
in particular the final version of the composite file. (needs
investigation)
Action 7.2-2: Section 7.2, line 1057 & 1059 - replace [some name] with
an actual name for all occurrences.
Action A.2-1: Appendix A.2, line 1249 - change the implementation type
in the example composite to one of the concrete types. (commented by
Dave Booz)
Action B-1: Appendix B - change all the RFC2119 keywords in the table in
(column2) to upper case.
Action B-2: Appendix B - clarify the meaning of NOT supported in the
table.
Action B-3: Appendix B - clarify the processing of "May be supported"
where the SCA runtime encounters an annotation that it does not support
it. (The thinking is that this SHOULD generate an error since something
the developer expected to happen will not happen).
Action B-4: Appendix B - in the row dealing with Conversational, the
final "conversationID" should be written "@ConversationID".
Action B-5: Appendix B - remove the row labeled "Intent, Qualifier".
Action B-6: Appendix B - add a statement that @Composite scope is not
allowed into the "Scope" row.
Action B-7: Appendix B - consider what should be done about @Request
scope.
Action B-8: Appendix B - consider whether the specification needs a new
section to discuss Scope.
Action B-9: Appendix B - correct the cases where "@reference" is used
rather than the correct "@Reference".
Action C-1: Appendix C - change the namespace=##any to namespace=##other
(this direction was set in the SCA Assembly spec for the SCA namespace
extensibility)
Mike E: Mike E will move the one unraised issue ("Section 5.1.4") to the
Action items section, as it is an editorial item - and he will do the
editorial work for this
Mike E: Mike E will raise the additional Issue added to the Issues
section
7.Comments, not made as Action Items or Issues
Section 6.1.5 - extended component type term is not good, should be
replaced with better one. Don't need to justify why a component type is
needed, just simply state that they exist and point to assembly
specification.
Plamen: Section 6 - what happens if there are 2 interfaces with the same
unqualified name from 2 different Java packages?
Anish: Not happy with the wording of Line 394
Dave B Section 3 - questions the need to retain lines 113 - 115 in
section 3
Dave B: Section 5.1.1 - this section really should come later in chap 5
but then the flow of the example is messed up
Dave B: Section 3 - this section needs to be cleaned up, but that
cleanup is not central to this restructure. There may be too many
concepts introduced here. I think this section should simply expand on
the use cases in section 2.
Mike E: Normative Reference 5 - FIXME
Mike E: Normative Reference 2 - We're going to have to keep these
references up to date as CDs get published. & FIXME
Dave B: Introduction - This might need more work.
8. Open issues
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-88
Java EE Spec: The @archive attribute of the implementation.jee element
needs fixing
Proposal: N/A

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-89
Java EE Spec: Section 7.1.1 & 7.1.2 - should say that the EJB references
are optionally made into SCA references
Proposal: availabel in JIRA

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-90
Java EE Spec: Section 5.1.1 normative change needs ratifying
Proposal: Accept the new form of the text.

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-91
Java EE Spec: Need to define the derivation of the name of a component
contributed to the Domain by an application.composite file
Proposal: N/A

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-93
JEE Integration spec needs to define how effective CT is calculated
Proposal: N/A
9. Adjourn

Dave Booz: my phone is not connecting
Plamen: we are online, is it possible for you to the one in another
country?
Dave Booz: it's an IP phone problem on my end...hold on
Dave Booz: dont wait for me
Mike Edwards: I was saying we'd wait another minute
Mike Edwards: Item 3 Approval of meeting Minutes
Mike Edwards: Nov 7 meeting
Mike Edwards: Approved without objection
Mike Edwards: Item 4 Next TC phone call
Mike Edwards: Nov 28th - this is the day after Thanksgiving in the USA
Vamsi: Good one Mike
Mike Edwards: Nov 28th meeting is cancelled
Mike Edwards: Next meeting will be Dec 5th
Mike Edwards: Item 6 Action Items
Mike Edwards: (Listed in Agenda)
Dave Booz: i'm on my cell phone...on mute
Mike Edwards: 1st 6 items assigned to Anish
Mike Edwards: - no progress at present
Mike Edwards: Next 6 issue - assigned to Plamen
Mike Edwards: - no progress at present
Raghav: Are we using the Working Doc #4?
Mike Edwards: Several unassigned items which are editorial actions
Mike Edwards: Mike Edwards will take all of these
Mike Edwards: 2 issues assigned to Mike Edwards
Mike Edwards: - no progress at present
Mike Edwards: Other items:
Mike Edwards: Section 6.1.5 comment
Mike Edwards: - this is for Anish
Mike Edwards: Section 6 comment from Plamen
Mike Edwards: - no progress
Mike Edwards: Line 394 item for Anish
Mike Edwards: - no progress
Mike Edwards: Section 3 comment from Dave Booz
Mike Edwards: - no progress
Mike Edwards: Section 5.1.1 comment from Dave Booz
Mike Edwards: - no progress
Mike Edwards: Section 3 comment #2 - from Dave
Mike Edwards: - no preogress
Mike Edwards: Reference 5 - from Mike E
Mike Edwards: - no progress
Mike Edwards: Reference 2 - from Mike E
Mike Edwards: - no progress
Mike Edwards: Item 8 Open Issues
Mike Edwards: Issue 88 The @archive attribute of the implementation.jee
element needs fixing
Mike Edwards: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-88
Mike Edwards: Discussion of a proposal
Mike Edwards: Mike E: the only proposal I can think of is to make the
@archive attribute a URI
Mike Edwards: it can be an absolute URI to point to an archive in
another contribution, or a relative URI to point to an archive inside
the current contribution
Mike Edwards: since every contribution has a URI
Mike Edwards: Action: Plamen will send an email with the proposal to the
main SCA J mail list
Mike Edwards: Issue 89: Section 7.1.1 & 7.1.2 - should say that the EJB
references are optionally made into SCA references
Mike Edwards: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-89
Mike Edwards: There is a proposal in the JIRA
Mike Edwards: Accepted without objection
Mike Edwards: Issue 90 Java EE Spec: Section 5.1.1 normative change
needs ratifying
Mike Edwards: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-90
Mike Edwards: There is a proposal in the JIRA
Mike Edwards: Need to get this on the agenda of the main SCA-J TC call
Mike Edwards: Issue 91 Java EE Spec: Need to define the derivation of
the name of a component contributed to the Domain by an
application.composite file
Mike Edwards: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-91
Mike Edwards: No proposal at present
Mike Edwards: Dave B: This is a left over from the OSOA discussions -
I'm sure we intended to remove this automagical deployment
Mike Edwards: Action - Dave Booz to make a proposal
Mike Edwards: Issue 93 - JEE Integration spec needs to define how
effective CT is calculated
Mike Edwards: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-93
Mike Edwards: Mike E: There is certainly a problem with section 6.1.5 -
since it references material from the Assembly spec that is not there
Mike Edwards: Action: Raghav will look at building a proposal for this
issue.
Mike Edwards: AOB



Regards,
Plamen

-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 3:43 AM
To: sca-j-jee@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sca-j-jee] Re: [sca-j] SCA JEE status

Are there minutes for this call?

-Anish
--

Pavlov, Plamen wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> 
> As there is little chance I to miss the Monday's phone call, I would 
> like to send the status for the SCA JEE Sub Committee in advance
> 
> This Friday we had our regular phone call and we went through the 
> assigned Action Items for which the status was not known. Some of the 
> Action Items were done, but most of them are still ongoing.
> 
> Alongside with this we distributed the Action Items which were left 
> without processor and assigned them between ourselves.
> 
> We went through the list of issues which were already raised in front
of 
> the SCA-J TC and are SCA-JEE related and hopefully some of them will
be 
> discussed in the next SCA-J TC phone calls as there are already 
> proposals. For the issues which are still without proposals, Action 
> Items are assigned to few of us.
> 
> For the next week (28.11.2008) we agree to cancel the meeting, as
there 
> is a holiday in USA on Thursday. Due to this the next SCA-JEE phone
call 
> is on 05.12.2008.
> 
> *******Best Regards,**************** Plamen*
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php