OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-j message

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

Subject: Minutes 13 Feb 2009

Mark Combellack: - Roll Call
- Appointment of scribe. List attached below
- Agenda bashing
- Approval of minutes from 9th February 2009

0. Administration 
- Issue Status: Open: 30
- LOA - Pradeep Simha (until Feb 27)

1. Review action items:

Action Items that I believe are done:
2009-02-09-01: SimonN to update proposal for JAVA-6 for Friday (2008-02-13)

Action Items that I believe are still to be done:
2008-07-15-02: Plamen to produce a proposal for JAVA-2
2008-11-11-21: Mark, Jim and Mike to describe their use cases for JAVA-30
2008-11-11-22: Mark to draw up some wording for Direction 1 (as discussed at the November F2F) for JAVA-62
2008-11-11-23: Mark (and others prepared to help) to investigate the WorkManager JEE spec and determine its applicability to SCA for JAVA-62
2008-11-11-27: Simon to raise issue on brain-damaged definition of @Service annotation (see comments in Nov F2F raw chat log)
2009-02-09-02: SimonN and Mark to work up a better proposal for the function proposed by Mark for Issue 1

2. Blocking issues

All 3 blocking issues are waiting for updated proposals

3. Critical Issue discussion

a. JAVA-121: Compilable artifacts for Java annotations and APIs
Updated Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00122.html

b. JAVA-6: @AllowsPassByReference requires more detailed description
Updated Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00112.html

c. JAVA-60: Sharing Java artifacts across contributions
Updated Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00128.html

The remaining 2 critical issues are waiting for updated proposals.

4. New Issues

a JAVA-129: Problems with Example 2b in chapter 7
Outline proposal in Jira

b. JAVA-130: CAA - Problems with Example 3 in chapter 7
Proposal PDF: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00119.html
Proposal MS Word: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00118.html
Comments on proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00123.html

c. JAVA-131: @Callback injection could be NULL
Latest Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00102.html

5. Other Open Issues discussion

a. JAVA-30: "Process" Scope
proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200812/msg00006.html

b. JAVA-117: Clarify the name implied by setter method for property and reference names
Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00124.html

c. JAVA-125: Allow call semantics to be specified in interface.java
Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00074.html

d. JAVA-65: There is no lifecycle defined for SCA Components
proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200811/msg00095.html

e. JAVA-102: Need to have a Name parameter on the @Service annotation
proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-102

f. JAVA-77: A remotable service SHOULD be translatable into a generally accepted standard for a service, such as WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0
proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00029.html

g. JAVA-76: Incorrect code in section 6.7.4 examples
Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00098.html

h. JAVA-62: Clarify what a Component Implementation can do with threads
proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-62

6. Blocking issues waiting for updates/proposals

a. JAVA-104: RFC2119 Language is needed for CAA Specification
No proposal

b. JAVA-105: RFC2119 Language is needed for C&I Specification
No proposal

c. JAVA-119: JAA Conformance Section
Updated proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00021.html
Alternative proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00049.html
Waiting for email discussion and new proposal

7. Critical issues waiting for updates/proposals

a. JAVA-54: Section 7.1 of the Java CAA Specification is unclear
No proposal

b. JAVA-1: Accessing SCA Services from non-SCA component code
Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00094.html
Source Code Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00050.html
Waiting for updated source code proposal

8. AOB

Rotating scribe list:

Peter Walker Sun Microsystems (1)
Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems (2)
Peter Peshev SAP AG (2)
Ron Barack SAP AG (3)
Michael Beisiegel IBM (3)
Sanjay Patil SAP AG (3)
Vladimir Savchenko SAP AG (1)
Jim Marino Individual (4)
Pradeep Simha TIBCO Software Inc. (5)
Meeraj Kunnumpurath Individual (2)
Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation (7)
Vamsavardhana Chillakuru IBM (3)
Bryan Aupperle IBM (6)
Plamen Pavlov SAP AG (2)
Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation (6)
Simon Nash Individual (4)
Graham Charters IBM (1)
Martin Chapman Oracle Corporation (6) 
Yang Lei (4)
Mike Edwards IBM (7)
Meeraj: Agenda approved
Meeraj: Minutes from Feb 9nth approved
Meeraj: Simon: Issue 121
anish: in terms of packaging, i assume we'll have a jar file that just contains the .class files (?)
anish: ... and that the jar file will be part of the OASIS committee spec/standard
Mark Combellack: It is nice to have the source code and javadoc linked into your editor when developing
Meeraj: is this going to be available in any publicly available Maven repo?
anish: i supposed we may need multiple packages
Mark Combellack: I would imagine that Tuscany would publish a Maven 2 artifact
Meeraj: F3 does the same to the Codehaus repo
Mike Edwards: I suppose that the TC could populate a Maven repo
Mark Combellack: F3 = fabric 3?
Mike Edwards: that would be entertaining
Meeraj: Mike: +1
Meeraj: right
Meeraj: Mike: This should go to the svn repo on Oasis
Meeraj: the source code
Meeraj: Mike: The class files with a zip or jar should be published somewhere
Meeraj: on the Oasis infrastructure
Mark Combellack: Need to make sure code is compiled with JDK 1.5 and not 1.6
Mike Edwards: agreed Mark
Mark Combellack lowered your hand
Mike Edwards: I agree with the separate artifacts idea
Mark Combellack: +1 to separate
Meeraj: Anish: Source, class and Javadoc files will have the same status as the spec
Dave Booz: I think we need a bunch of motions here to lock in some of these items - we seem to have some agreement
Mike Edwards: -1 to requiring a new set of artifacts every time we create a working draft
Mike Edwards: but +1 to doing that for a CD
Mike Edwards: CDs are relatively rare
anish: not for working draft, which doesn't have any status
anish: but for CDs, CS, and OS
Bryan Aupperle: PRD as well?
anish: yes, i *think* PRDs have to be CDs
anish: but if not, then certainly 'yes'
Meeraj: Simon raises a motion to accept the file in message 122 as a resolution for 121
Meeraj: Mike seconds
Meeraj: Bo objections, motion passed
Meeraj: s/Bo/No
Meeraj: Action on Simon to check the source into svn
Meeraj: Action on Mike?
Mike Edwards: yes
Mike Edwards: Mike to upload the artifacts to OASIS SVN repository
Meeraj: Anish motions to include source, class and jar files to be part of ....?
Mark Combellack: CD, CS, OS and PRD
Vamsi: javadoc files
Meeraj: Anish motions to include source, class and javadoc files to be part of CD, CS, OS and PRD
Mark Combellack: seconded by Simon
Mark Combellack: Perhaps we ought to include @author Oasis Open in the headers too?
Meeraj: how are these files licensed?
Meeraj: Action on the chair to look at how these files can be licensed
Meeraj: Anish's motion to include source, class and javadoc files to be part of CD, CS, OS and PRD passed unanimously
Meeraj: Mark, you cut up, could you pls erpeat or type that in?
anish: ACTION: mark to raise a new issue for the JDK versions for the SCA J specs
Meeraj: Mark has an action item to raise a new issue on the JDK version
Meeraj: Simon motions that in case of conflicts between code and spec, spec would be normtive
Meeraj: Mike sconds
Meeraj: Motion passed unanimously
Meeraj: Issue no 6
Meeraj: Simon's proposal
anish thx for the PDF
Mark Combellack: Time is nearly up
Mike Edwards: So the client code MUST obey the restrictions for all reference methods even where the service impl does not mark the method as @AllowsPassByReference
Meeraj: Simon motion these changes with fixing the heading for 6
Meeraj: Mike seconds
Meeraj: Motions passed unanimously
Meeraj: Issue 6 resolved

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