[10:44] Vamsi: we can count on you though
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Raw minutes for today's call
[9:49] 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 for 17th March 2009 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31708/SCA%20Java%20Minutes%202009-03-17.doc 0. Administration - Issue Status: Open: 16 - Daylight saving started March 8 in the US - calls will be an hour earlier for those in Europe from 9th March for 3 weeks - Reminder: Calls on Friday March 20th and 27th extended to 2 hours starting at normal time 1. Review action items: Action Items that I believe are done: 2009-02-23-01: Anish to write proposal for JAVA-119 Action Items that I believe are still to be done: 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 2009-02-13-01: Mike to upload artifacts for JAVA-121 into OASIS Open SVN 2009-02-16-01: Mike to fix the usage of "class loader" through out the spec 2009-02-23-02: Mike to provide proposal for JAVA-54 2009-03-23-03: Editors to make sure org.osoa replaced with org.oasisopen 2009-02-23-06: Simon to write proposal for Java 131 2. List A Issues - Must be resolved before Public Review a. JAVA-105: RFC2119 Language is needed for C&I Specification http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-105 Updated proposal (PDF): http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/31730/sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd04_proposal4.pdf Updated proposal (Word): http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/31729/sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd04_proposal4.doc b. 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/200903/msg00148.html 4. Blocked List A Issues - Must be resolved before Public Review waiting for updates/proposals None 5. List B Issues - Nice to resolve before Public Review a. JAVA-98: Can annotations be inherited http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-98 Original Outline Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00192.html Alternative Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200903/msg00059.html Updated proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200903/msg00150.html 6. Blocked List B Issues - Nice to resolve before Public Review waiting for updates/proposals a. JAVA-129: Problems with Example 2b in chapter 7 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-65 Updated proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200903/msg00097.html Blocked by JAVA-98 7. New Issues (Requires 2/3s of Voting members to open) a. JAVA-144: Possible confusion over whether @Service can specify both a class and an interface http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-144 Proposal in Jira b. JAVA-145: Constructor selection algorithm is not well defined http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-145 Proposal in Jira 8. List C "10 Minute" Issues a. JAVA-1: Accessing SCA Services from non-SCA component code http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-1 Proposal (PDF): http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31746/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev3%20Issue1%20rev%202.pdf Proposal (Word): http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31745/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev3%20Issue1%20rev%202.doc 9. Other List C Issues a. JAVA-139: Default value for SCA property is not supported for java implementations http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-139 Outline of proposal in Jira b. JAVA-127: Long running request/response operations http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-127 Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200812/msg00089.html c. JAVA-143: Guidelines for dealing with cyclic references refers to an impossible situation http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-143 Proposal in Jira 10. AOB --------------------------------------------------------------- Rotating scribe list: Ron Barack SAP AG (3) Michael Beisiegel IBM (3) Sanjay Patil SAP AG (3) Jim Marino Individual (4) Pradeep Simha TIBCO Software Inc. (5) Vamsavardhana Chillakuru IBM (3) Plamen Pavlov SAP AG (2) Graham Charters IBM (1) Meeraj Kunnumpurath Individual (3) Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation (9) Martin Chapman Oracle Corporation (7) Bryan Aupperle IBM (8 ) Yang Lei (5) Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation (8 ) Mike Edwards IBM (8 ) Simon Nash Individual (6)
[10:05] Martin C: scribeNick: Martin C
[10:06] Martin C: Topic: Agenda
[10:06] Martin C: Agreed as posted
[10:06] Martin C: Topic: Approval of minutes for 17th March 2009 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31708/SCA%20Java%20Minutes%202009-03-17.doc
[10:06] Martin C: No objections, approved w/o
[10:07] Martin C: Topic: admin
[10:07] Martin C: 16 open issues
[10:07] Martin C: 1 more week of DST mistmatch between US and the rest of the world
[10:07] Martin C: both calls next week are 2 hours
[10:07] Martin C: Topic: Action Items
[10:08] Martin C: 2009-02-23-01 has been done
[10:08] Martin C: Others still in progress.
[10:08] Martin C: One missing from the list from last meeting
[10:09] Martin C: Topic: List A issues
[10:09] Martin C: JAVA-105: RFC2119 Language is needed for C&I Specification
[10:09] Martin C: Mike E goes over proposal: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/31730/sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd04_proposal4.pdf
[10:10] Martin C: Addresses all comments received by Simon and Vamsi
[10:12] anish: how about 'Summary of Conformance Items'
[10:13] anish: -1 to all appendices being non-normative
[10:13] Vamsi: s/received by/received from/
[10:14] anish: in fact we should say in the spec: everything is normative except example unless marked so
[10:14] Martin C: Appendix B, editorial to change from assembly to java component impl
[10:15] Martin C: Mike moves to resolve issue 105 with the doc wd04_proposal4, changeing the appendix B the refer to this spec
[10:16] Martin C: s/change/chang/
[10:16] Martin C: 2nd: Vamsi
[10:17] Martin C: Passed w/o
[10:18] Martin 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/200903/msg00148.html
[10:18] Martin C: Anish goes over alternative proposal
[10:19] Mark Combellack: is anyone else hearing "pop corn" on the line?
[10:24] Martin C: Simon: need to collocate the statement about precedence of java with the precedeunce of schema
[10:25] Martin C: java precedence defined by doc first zip file 2nd
[10:26] Martin C: Simon: component type has not been mentioned
[10:26] Martin C: Anish: no side files
[10:27] Martin C: Simon: still able to be inspected, so may need to be mentioned
[10:28] Martin C: Anish: hard to mandate because internal structures not manadated
[10:30] Martin C: Anish: might be better said somewhere else but not in conformance section
[10:30] Martin C: Simon: interesting suggestion if using rfc2119 language
[10:32] Martin C: Simon: is there a direct dependancy on policy?
[10:32] Martin C: Anish: yes
[10:32] Mark Combellack lowered your hand
[10:32] Martin C: Bryan: there will be not side files so any statement about producing one will be strange
[10:34] Martin C: Simon: noot so much a statement of the side file, more a statement of an introspected component type
[10:37] Martin C: Action: Mike E to raise a new issue about section 3 of c&a spec needs annotations added
[10:38] Martin C: Simon: back to policy. do we have to say this since you get it from being compliant with assembly
[10:38] anish: New wording for 2nd sentence of SCA Java XML Document:
[10:39] anish: Such an SCA Java XML document MUST be a compliant SCA XML document as defined by [SCA-ASM] and MUST comply with the requirements specified in Section 3 of this specification.
[10:39] anish: s/compliant/conformant
[10:41] anish: extend the definition to Java Interface
[10:44] Vamsi: we can count on you though
[10:49] Martin C: Simon: policy may need to be stated for interface.java
[10:49] Martin C: item 2 under runtime is about supporting interface.java
[10:53] Martin C: Amend the action item regarding section 3, to add missing pseudo schema in same section
[10:56] Bryan Aupperle: Scribe change: Bryan is now Scribe
[10:57] Bryan Aupperle: Discussion about proper location for the statements about rejecting non-conforming SCA XML documents.
[10:58] Bryan Aupperle: Conclusion is that this approach is better that what has been done in the assembly spec.
[11:00] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: The first MUST in second #3 should appear in section 10.
[11:02] Mike Edwards: It might be best to take this proposal away and rework it for next week
[11:02] anish: how about: The implementation MUST support and comply with all the normative statements in Section 10.
[11:03] Mark Combellack: Current meeting status: Voting Members: 13 of 13 (100%) (used for quorum calculation) - we have all voters
[11:04] Bryan Aupperle: AI (Simon) Raise an issue about inconsistent normative statements wrt XML/JAXB mapping in section 10.
[11:07] anish: s/C&I/Component Implementation/g
[11:08] Bryan Aupperle: Moving on to JCI Conformance section review
[11:10] Bryan Aupperle: Parallel changes as discussed for CAA need to be made here.
[11:12] Bryan Aupperle: AI (Anish) Raise issue about needed conformance points in section 9 of JCI
[11:14] Bryan Aupperle: Remove point 2 from JCI runtime list.
[11:19] Bryan Aupperle: Second #4 needs a section number and #6 needs "in this specification" added
[11:20] anish: point 6: add 'this specficition', point 2nd 4: specific the section #
[11:23] Bryan Aupperle: Anish to produce update for Monday's call.
[11:24] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: Java-98
[11:24] Bryan Aupperle: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-98
[11:24] Bryan Aupperle: Latest proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200903/msg00150.html
[11:25] Bryan Aupperle: Simon reviews backgound for latest proposal.
[11:25] Bryan Aupperle: Simon reviews proposal.
[11:33] Bryan Aupperle: Discussion about JSR 250 rules and the proposed deviation from it.
[11:33] Bryan Aupperle: Anish: If we deviate from JSR 250 rule 2 is inheritance OK?
[11:35] Bryan Aupperle: Anish supports allowing inheritance if we do not follow JSR 250 rule 2.
[11:36] Dave Booz Mark, I've had to drop
[11:36] Mark Combellack: ok
[11:36] Bryan Aupperle: Mike is uncomfortable with nullification of intents and thus inheritance.
[11:37] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: you still have to look at super class for method annotations.
[11:38] Bryan Aupperle: Mark thinks the rules are easier to understand the non-inheritance case.
[11:39] Bryan Aupperle: Yang: Will not following JSR 250 fully cause problems in JEE?
[11:39] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: It would be easy enough for a SCA runtime to do the correct thing.
[11:41] Bryan Aupperle: Anish: JSR 250 (spec by example) is not clear
[11:41] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: All the more reason to not follow it.
[11:44] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: JSR 250 is a set of guidelines.
[11:47] Bryan Aupperle: Yang: We make use of existing security annotations. Are the proposed rules for them as well or only the ones we define?
[11:48] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: Only the ones we define. So this could result in a mixture of rules for annotations that may used by an SCA component.
[11:51] Bryan Aupperle: Consensus is to not follow JSR 250 rule 2.
[11:53] Mike Edwards: I would vote for Simon's latest proposal
[11:53] Bryan Aupperle: So inheritance issue is now focused on turning off intents.
[11:53] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: Current proposal is smallest change to resolve issue.
[11:55] Bryan Aupperle: Motion (Simon, second Anish) Set direct for resolving issue 98 to not follow JSR 250 rule 2.
[11:56] Bryan Aupperle: s/direct/direction/
[11:56] Bryan Aupperle: Resolution: motion passes w/o
[11:57] Bryan Aupperle: Motion (Anish, second Ashok) Set direction for resolution of issue 98 to remove all annotations that can also be specified using @Requires.
[11:59] Mark Combellack: time check
[11:59] Bryan Aupperle: Anish: In the current spec text, the relationship between @requires and intent specific annotations is not clear.
[11:59] Bryan Aupperle: Mike does not support this motion.
[12:00] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: What would the annotation look like using @Requires?
[12:01] Bryan Aupperle: Anish: We could add appropriate constants to make this easier.
[12:01] Bryan Aupperle: Mark: Time expires and motion is not acted upon.
[12:01] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: AOB
[12:02] Simon Nash: adding these to contstants works for the ones that SCA defines, but is not an extensible approach
[12:03] Simon Nash: what if someone wants to define constants for a new intent that isn't in the built-in set?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]