Re: [sca-j] A couple of problems that we have previously discussed but havenot yet raised issues for them

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Folks,

I think that issues should be raised
for both of these in the Java TC.

We will then need to decide whether
there are greater concerns that need to be taken to the Assembly TC


Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From:	"Mark Combellack" <mcombellack@avaya.com>
To:	<sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	11/09/2008 12:01
Subject:	[sca-j] A couple of problems that we have previously discussed but have not yet raised issues for them

---

Hi,
 
From my recollection of various SCA-J conference
calls that we have had, we have mentioned a couple of problems that (as
far as I can tell) do not currently have any issues raised for them. With
the upcoming September 15th raising of the bar for new issues,
it may be worth raising them soon.
 
The things that I can remember are:

• Component Lifecycle – we currently don’t have one – perhaps we should define one?
• Definition of Scopes – should this be pushed up to the SCA-Assembly specification?

What do people think? Should issues be raised
for these problems? Does anyone feel like owning any of these problems
and raising a new issue?
 
Thanks,
 
Mark
Mark Combellack|
Software Developer|
Avaya |
Eastern Business
Park | St.
Mellons | Cardiff
| CF3
5EA | Voice:
+44 (0) 29 2081 7624 |
mcombellack@avaya.com

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU