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: Re: [sca-j] Handling the remaining open issues and our first PublicReview


Mark,
I think the prioritization should also factor in the likely difficulty
of resolving the issues.  There are some in List C that have full
proposals and seem like they would take little time to resolve.
Also, I don't think List C issues that have full proposals should be
blocked from discussion on the calls until all the List A and List B
issues have been resolved.  I'd like to propose two alternative
approaches:

1. Institute a 10-minute rule.  An issue with a full proposal for
    resolution can be scheduled for discussion under a 10-minute rule.
    If not resolved in 10 minutes, discussion is halted.

2. On each call, the List A+B issues and any 10-minute rule issues
    are discussed first.  If there is any time remaining, that time
    can be used to discuss other issues.

See my specific comments inline below on your categorization of the
issues.

   Simon

Mark Combellack wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> I have been looking through the 22 remaining open issues that we have 
> for the SCA-J specification and I am very aware that we need to have a 
> Public Review Draft very soon. Currently, I feel that we will not be 
> able to resolve all the 22 open issues before we go to Public Review. 
> Currently we have told the Liaison committee that we will not reach the 
> original mid-March date and are now aiming to go for Public Review in 
> mid-April
> 
>  
> 
> To this end, as chairs we feel that as a TC, we should:
> 
>  
> 
> ·         Schedule some more conference call times (will cover this in a 
> separate discussion)
> 
> ·         Concentrate on what must be resolved before going to Public 
> Review.
> 
>  
> 
> I have been through all of the open issues and prioritized them so we 
> can focus our efforts with the remaining time.
> 
>  
> 
> Below, I have listed the remaining open issues:
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *_List A: Issues that must resolve before Public Review_*
> 
>  
> 
> These issues must be resolved before going to Public Review.
> 
>  
> 
> JAVA-104          RFC2119 Language is needed for CAA Specification
> 
> JAVA-105          RFC2119 Language is needed for C&I Specification
> 
> JAVA-119          JAA Conformance Section
> 
>  
> 
> In addition to the above issues, we need to ensure that Test Assertions 
> and Test Cases are written. There is currently no issue open for this task.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *_List B: Issues that would be nice to resolve before Public Review_*
> 
>  
> 
> It would be nice if the following issues were resolved before going to 
> Public Review. However, if they are not resolved, then they are not 
> critical enough to prevent the Public Review from taking place.
> 
>  
> 
> JAVA-123          Java C&I - Remove references to conversational function
> 
This should be trivial.  If no-one is actively working on this,
I will volunteer to take it on.

> JAVA-39           Incorrect example in Java Component Implementation 
> Spec v1.00 - Sec 1.2.4
>
This can be closed as a duplicate of JAVA-137.

> JAVA-129          Problems with Example 2b in chapter 7
> 
> JAVA-54           Section 7.1 of the Java CAA Specification is unclear
> 
I think this should be downgraded.  No specific problems have been
identified with the current text.

> JAVA-38           Inconsistent rules for the use of @reference annotation
> 
This can be closed as a duplicate of JAVA-133.

> JAVA-65           There is no lifecycle defined for SCA Components
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *_List C: Issues that we could leave unresolved until after Public Review_*
> 
>  
> 
> The following issues can remain unresolved when going to Public Review. 
> Starting from Monday 16^th March, I am intending to not schedule any 
> call time before the Public Review for these issues unless all the 
> issues from List A and List B are resolved.
> 
>  
> 
> JAVA-127          Long running request/response operations
> 
> JAVA-125          Allow call semantics to be specified in interface.java
> 
There is a full proposal for this and I believe we should allocate
10 minutes to discuss it and hopefully resolve the issue.

> JAVA-134          @Callback and @Remotable on implementation classes
> 
There is a full proposal for this and I believe we should allocate
10 minutes to discuss it and hopefully resolve the issue.

> JAVA-131          @Callback injection could be NULL (expanded to include 
> refs, property and re-injection and callback ctor injection)
> 
> JAVA-98           Can annotations be inherited
> 
> JAVA-1             Accessing SCA Services from non-SCA component code
> 
> JAVA-46           equals() method on ServiceReference and CallableReference
> 
> JAVA-139          Default value for SCA property is not supported for 
> java implementations
> 
> JAVA-62           Clarify what a Component Implementation can do with 
> threads
> 
> JAVA-78           Need API to set EPR and for a reference invocation
> 
> JAVA-51           More examples on <interface.wsdl> mapping to Java
> 
> JAVA-53           what happens if init() throws a runtime exception 
> (Blocked by JAVA-65)
> 
> JAVA-13           ComponentContext.getProperty(...) ill defined (Blocked 
> by JAVA-138)
> 
Actually it's blocked by JAVA-139 not JAVA-138.  I think we should move
this to list B and resolve it based on the current spec.  If and when
we add the new capability proposed in JAVA-139, we can update the spec
text as necessary.

   Simon

>  
> 
>  
> 
> I have tried to be as harsh as possible with the above lists. Most of 
> the nice to resolve issues are “editorial” stuff to correct examples and 
> clarify existing functionality. Generally the issues in the defer list 
> are new features or enhancements to the current specification. I expect 
> there may be some disagreement with my classifications but feel free to 
> raise any strong disagreements that you may have.
> 
>  
> 
> I would also like to encourage people to focus their attention on the 
> issues in List A and List B. This will maximise our ability to resolve 
> as many of the pressing issues before we go to Public Review.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> I am interested in people’s opinion on the lists and whether with the 
> above plan they feel that we can achieve our Public Review date of 
> mid-April? I certainly hope that we can.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  
> 
> Mark
> 
> Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | Eastern Business Park | St. 
> Mellons | Cardiff | CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 | 
> mcombellack@avaya.com <mailto:|mcombellack@avaya.com>
> 




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