[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Raw chat log of 2009-02-16 telcon
Mark Combellack: - Roll Call http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=sca-j - Appointment of scribe. List attached below - Agenda bashing - Approval of minutes from 13th February 2009 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31226/SCA%20Java%20Minutes%202009-02-13.doc 0. Administration - Issue Status: Open: 28 1. Review action items: Action Items that I believe are done: 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 2009-02-13-01: Mike to upload artifacts for JAVA-121 into OASIS Open SVN 2009-02-13-02: Chairs to look at how the files for JAVA-121 should be licensed 2009-02-13-03: Mark to raise a new issue for the JDK version of the SCA J spec 2. Blocking issues All 3 blocking issues are waiting for updated proposals 3. Critical Issue discussion a. JAVA-60: Sharing Java artifacts across contributions http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-60 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 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-129 Outline proposal in Jira b. JAVA-130: CAA - Problems with Example 3 in chapter 7 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-130 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 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-131 Latest Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00102.html 5. Other Open Issues discussion a. JAVA-30: "Process" Scope http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-30 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 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-117 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 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-65 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 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-30 proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00029.html g. JAVA-76: Incorrect code in section 6.7.4 examples http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-76 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 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-104 No proposal b. JAVA-105: RFC2119 Language is needed for C&I Specification http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-105 No proposal c. JAVA-119: JAA Conformance Section http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-119 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 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-54 No proposal b. JAVA-1: Accessing SCA Services from non-SCA component code http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-1 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) 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 Kunnumpurath Individual (3) Dave Booz: scribe: Dave (temoporary) Dave Booz: s/temoporary/temporary Dave Booz: topic: agenda bashing Dave Booz: Mark proposes adding 132 to the agenda Dave Booz: Mike E proposes to add Java 1 to the agenda for discussion - after java 60 anish back anish thx anish dave Dave Booz: no objections to agenda changes anish: Topic: approval of minutes Dave Booz anish, go ahead anish: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31226/SCA%20Java%20Minutes%202009-02-13.doc anish: minutes of 13th feb, 2009 approved anish: Topic: status anish: number of open issues 28 anish: topic: AI review anish: no update to AIs anish: Topic: Blocking issues anish: all 3 blocking issues waiting on proposal anish: Topic: Issue 60 Mike Edwards: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/31240/sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd02_issue60g.pdf anish: Mark: latest proposal from MikeE anish: MikeE: 3 changes as a response to Simon's points anish: ... 1st change in section 11 related to export element anish: ... Simon had pointed out that the working was not clear anish: ... changed that to read as follows: "The uses directive indicates that any SCA contribution that imports this package from this 593 exporting contribution MUST also import the same version as is used by this exporting 594 contribution of any of the packages contained in the uses directive." anish: this is line 592 anish: simon: that does clear up the ambiguity anish: MikeE: next change in section 11.2 bullet 2 anish: ... new clause added to the end: "but is always the same contribution for all imports of the package." anish: Simon: looks fine anish: MikeE: final change in 11.3. Had missed a change that we had previously agreed to anish: ... new sentence added: "The thread context classloader of a component implementation class is set to the classloader of its containing contribution." anish: Mark: one ed. inconsistency in "classloader" v. "class loader" anish: Simon: should be consistent through out the spec. Vamsi had raised this and said it should be a single word anish: Yang: in section 11.2. Not clear about bullet 2.a anish: MikeE: The relevant sentence is last line in bullet 2: "If the java package is not found, continue to step 3." Vamsi: (class loader. two words in J2SE docs. http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/ClassLoader.html) anish: Motion: m: MikeE s: SimonN Resolve issue 60 using the document at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/31240/sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd02_issue60g.pdf with the ed change suggested to section 11.2 anish: Motion approved w/o anish: MikeE: Vamsi has noticed that "class loader" is two words except for the actual class name which is "ClassLoader". Will handle that as editorial anish: ACTION: MikeE: to fix the usage of "class loader" through out the spec anish: Topic: Issue Java-1 anish: http://osoa.org/jira/browse/Java-1 anish: Accessing SCA Services from non-SCA component code anish: MikeE: don't want client-side dependency on implementation-specific code anish: ... discussion on builder to provider access to implementation-specific code. The Q is to figure out how to do this. anish: ... I had suggested that we look at DOMFactory anish: ... want to see if we agree on a direction here anish: SimonN: taken what Mark had suggested (SCAClientFactory) and suggested that instead of having it code defined make it spec defined. Have OASIS provide a ref. implementation but not required. With RFC 2919 keywords to say what it must/must not do anish: ... MikeE had suggested an abstract base class. Don't have a strong opinion on it. Need a level of indirection anish: Mark: happy with Simon's suggestion anish: MikeE: I quite like how XML gets hold of factories with an abstract base class Vamsi: s/RFC 2919/RFC 2119 anish: ... the standard code will have a simple set of mechanism for finding the factories. The Q is whether to have a default anish thx Vamsi anish: ... in our case no obvious default anish: ... might want to just fail anish: MikeE: the distinction is that a provider can subclass anish: Simon: in JAXB there is a hardwired factory. I think this should be replaceable. We should not have a concrete implementation for finding the factory, that everyone must use Mark Combellack lowered your hand anish: Anish: how does it find the actual implementation class: std property? anish: MikeE: same as JAXP anish: SimonN: the abstract class would contain a particular factory finder impl, that cannot be overriden by a vendor anish: MikE: trade off here anish: SimonN: worried about things like being OSGi friendly anish: s/MikE/MikeE/ anish: MikeE: worried about client code being dependent on an particular vendor code anish: SimonN: agree that the client code should not depend on vendor code, but it is the particular implementation of factory finder mandated by the standard that i'm worried about anish: SimonN: does anyone care if the standard method (eg newInstace()) should be part of the interface/abstract class? anish: Jim: in the interface where would the finder method be: a static block? anish: SimonN: in both cases, there would be class with an impl. (static). The difference is would there be a separate interface as well. Two options: vendor could either extend the abstract base class or implement a particular interface jeffm: hi, that was me joining the call anish: Jim: will have to think/look more about this anish: Mark: at this point, we need some code anish: ACTION: Mark to create code to contrast the two options for direction for issue Java-1 anish: Topic: New Isses anish: s/Isses/Issues/ anish: JAVA-129: Problems with Example 2b in chapter 7 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-129 Outline proposal in Jira anish: SimonN explains issue 129 anish: 4 points in the issue anish: free floating service definitions anish: operation elements inside a service has been removed anish: operation elements are incorrectly placed anish: incorrect intent inheritance Vamsi: Simon, that was funny anish: MOTION: m:SimonN s:Vamsi open issue 129 anish: motion approved w/o anish: JAVA-130: CAA - Problems with Example 3 in chapter 7 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-130 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 anish: SimonN: we have already talked about this on a call anish: ... number of problems with Example 3 in section 7.6.2.1 of cd02-rev2. anish: MOTION: m:SimonN s:Vamsi open issue 130 anish: motion approved w/o anish: JAVA-131: @Callback injection could be NULL http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-131 Latest Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00102.html anish: DaveB explains his issue anish: DaveB: some corner cases such as an implementation implements interfaces that are both bidirectional and non-bidirectional anish: MOTION: m:DaveB s:MikeE open issue 131 anish: motion approved w/o anish: Java 132: Specification should require JDK 1.5 or above anish: Mark: the spec allows JDK 1.4 anish: ... we have stated that we'll be compiling with JDK 1.5 and our APIs contain generics and annotations anish: MOTION: m:Mark slamen open issue 132 anish: motion approved w/o anish: Topic: Issue 30 anish: JAVA-30: "Process" Scope http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-30 proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200812/msg00006.html anish: DaveB: issue originally opened as process scope. We ran into difference of opinion on this. A "composite" scope component in a cluster -- is there one instance or multiple anish: ... we had an initial proposal from MikeE, some of the text in this proposal is from MikeE. His proposal was that "composite" scope should be a solution to this problem and we should not introduce a "process" scope anish: ... composite scope at domain-level is a singleton, at lower-level, depends on how many times the composite gets used Mark Combellack lowered your hand anish: Anish: so case (a) and case (b) are the same wrt behavior of the runtime anish: DaveB: yes. mostly because this was meant to address the "process" scope Q anish: Anish: if there is just one use of a composite, in a cluster, how many instances would there be? anish: DaveB: one anish: SimonN: logical or physical? anish: DaveB: one instance as seen by the consumer anish: Anish: i meant logical anish: MikeE: In the proposal ("a) Where the composite containing the component using the Java implentation is the SCA Domain (ie a deployment composite declares the component using the implementation)") change "i.e." to "e.g." anish: Bryan: there is an AI against Jim/Mark/Mike to generate usecases Vamsi: typo on line 154 implentation - implementation anish: Mark: i have come around to Dave's POV anish: Motion: m:DaveB s: resolve Java-30 with the proposal at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200812/msg00006.html with one ed change (s/ie/eg/) anish: motion approved w/o anish: Topic: issue 117 anish: JAVA-117: Clarify the name implied by setter method for property and reference names http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-117 Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00124.html anish: Vamsi: this is an issue raised against java c&i but affects both c&i and CAA. Do we need another issue? anish: Mark: we should have a second issue. but lets see where this goes and make a late decision on this anish: Vamsi walks thru sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd02+Issue117.doc changes (from the proposal) anish: Vamsi: 1st change in section 8 anish: In line 392 anish: Vamsi: same section, similar change for properties on line 418 anish: ... similar change on lines 479, 492 in section 8.2 anish: ... section 8.3 -- new section anish: ... describes what must happen if there are two setter methods with same JavaBean prop name anish: SimonN: the example distinguishes based on the case of 's' (someProperty). I missed that. Can we added a comment to point that out. anish: Vamsi: will move next to the CAA spec sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02+Issue117.doc in the proposal msg anish: ... 1st change in 8.14 1387 anish: ... 2nd change in 8.15 1454 anish: ... added a ref to JavaBeans spec anish: MOTION: m:Vamsi s:DaveB resolve issue 117 based on the proposal at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00124.html anish: motion approved w/o anish: anish: 117 affects both specs and if we produce the CDs at different times this may be problematic anish: Mark: would encourage the editors to produce the two CDs at the same time anish: Bryan: is the next one that we vote on the PRD anish: Dave: I hope so anish: Bryan: if so, this won't be a big problem wrt book keeping Dave Booz Anish, do you have a C&I draft in progress right now? anish: Vamsi: simon's comment about ed changes to "someProperty" anish: ACTION: editors to make an ed change when applying resolution of issue 117 (in section 8.3) to make a comment about the case difference in "someProperty/SomeProperty" anish dave, i don't anish would be happy to help out, if you want to do divide-and-conquer anish: Mark: AOB and straggler roll anish: no AOB anish: meeting adjourned anish dave, can make updates without divide-and-conquer as well
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]