[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Today's minutes
[9:47] 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 1st June 2009 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32793/SCA%20Java%20Minutes%202009-06-01.doc 0. Administration - Issue Status: Open: 31 1. Review action items: Action Items that I believe are done: 2009-05-29-01: Anish to update the titles of the two docs and send to Mary 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 2009-05-11-01: Editors: remove extra space on line 767 of CD01 (PDF) 2009-06-01-01: MikeE to raise issue regarding some Assembly tests that require Java 2009-06-01-02: Simon to contact Vamsi to discuss proposal for Issue 139 2. Progress of the SCA-J specification to Public Review Reminder: submitted for Public Review http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200905/msg00078.html Updated specification title: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200906/msg00020.html 3. New Issues None 4. Open Issues a. JAVA-122: EJB Binding - Remove references to conversational function http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-122 Latest proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200906/msg00025.html b. JAVA-24: The EJB bindings specification should provide explicity statesupport or non-support for Callbacks http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-24 Latest proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200906/msg00026.html c. JAVA-118: EJB Binding: Need description for <wireFormat/> and <operationSelection/> http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-118 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200906/msg00027.html d. JAVA-140: Schema for @ejb-link-name is incorrect http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-140 Updated proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200906/msg00021.html e. JAVA-149: SCA Spring C & I specification need to specify the limitations of implicit references http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-149 Proposal in Jira f. JAVA-150: SCA Spring C & I specification need to mention how SCA runtime should load multiple application context files. http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-150 Proposal in Jira g. JAVA-114: Spring CI runtime behaviour when annotation rules are violated http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-114 Proposal in Jira 5. Issues waiting for updated proposals a. JAVA-59: SCA Spring C & I specification does not state what happens when a Bean exposed as a service implements mutliple interfaces http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-59 Waiting for updated proposal b. JAVA-58: SCA Spring C&I Specification does not have a normative definition of how to calculate the ComponentType of a Spring Application context http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-58 Latest proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200905/msg00102.html PDF: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/32614/sca-springci-draft-20070926_Issue58c.pdf MS Word: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/32615/sca-springci-draft-20070926_Issue58c.doc Waiting for updated proposal c. JAVA-92: Spring C&I spec needs to define how effective CT is calculated http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-92 Latest proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200905/msg00102.html Waiting for JAVA-58 to be resolved. 6. Issues with no proposals a. JAVA-163: Spring C&I sca-spring:reference element has a default attribute which is unexplained http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-163 No proposal b. JAVA-107: RFC2119 Language is needed for the EJB Binding Specification http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-107 No proposal c. JAVA-106: RFC2119 Language is needed for Spring C&I Specification http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-106 No proposal d. JAVA-63: SCA Spring C & I specification does not state whether Constructor Injection should be supported http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-63 No proposal 7. AOB a. Straggler roll call --------------------------------------------------------------- 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) Meeraj Kunnumpurath Individual (3) Martin Chapman Oracle Corporation (9) Bryan Aupperle IBM (11) Yang Lei (7) Simon Nash Individual (8 ) Mike Edwards IBM (10) Graham Charters IBM (3) Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation (12) Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation (11)
[10:03] Mike Edwards: greetings
[10:05] Bryan Aupperle: Scribe: Bryan
[10:06] Bryan Aupperle: Agenda addition: Discussion of holding call on 3 July added during TC Administriation
[10:06] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: Approval of minutes
[10:06] Bryan Aupperle: Resolution: Minutes are approved
[10:06] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: TC Administration
[10:07] Bryan Aupperle: Call on 3 July
[10:07] Bryan Aupperle: Motion: Dave, Second Bryan - Cancel call on 3 July
[10:08] Bryan Aupperle: Resolution: Motion passes w/o
[10:08] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: Action Items
[10:08] Bryan Aupperle: 2009-05-29-01 - Done
[10:08] Bryan Aupperle: Remaining Ongoing
[10:09] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: Public Review Status
[10:09] anish note that Mary is going to be on vacation starting 17th
[10:09] Bryan Aupperle: Titles have been updated and resubmitted to TC Admin
[10:12] Bryan Aupperle: Topic Java-122
[10:12] Bryan Aupperle: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-122 Latest proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200906/msg00025.html
[10:13] Bryan Aupperle: Dave reviews proposal
[10:15] anish minor ed: prefer interchangeably than synonymous
[10:17] Bryan Aupperle: Mike: Are people concerned about not supporting stateful session beans? I am.
[10:18] Bryan Aupperle: Anish: Yes I am
[10:18] Bryan Aupperle: Dave: Technically stateful beans have conversational semantics.
[10:19] Bryan Aupperle: Anish: Better to say stateful beans are out of scope and if you want to use them, you are on your own?
[10:20] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: Is the something user provided?
[10:20] Bryan Aupperle: Dave: Two technical problems 1) getting to correct instance 2) different interface mappings.
[10:21] Bryan Aupperle: Dave: Anish by out of scope do you mean a vendor could add extensions to provide support for statful beans?
[10:21] Bryan Aupperle: Anish: Yes.
[10:22] Bryan Aupperle: Mike: I will want to go and play with some examples to think about this.
[10:25] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: JAVA-24 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-24 Latest proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200906/msg00026.html
[10:26] Mike Edwards: This feels like a double dose of Castor Oil
[10:26] Bryan Aupperle: Dave reviews proposal
[10:27] Bryan Aupperle: Pause to think...
[10:27] anish would be nice if definitions.xml had a notProvides attribute along with mayProvides and alwaysProvides
[10:29] Bryan Aupperle: Mike: Are you suggesting that a forward reference using binding.ejb could not have a callback even using a different binding?
[10:29] Bryan Aupperle: Dave: Not really, the JEE programming model does not support a callback from an EJB.
[10:30] Bryan Aupperle: Mike: This would be the first time we tie an implementation type and the binding type used.
[10:32] Bryan Aupperle: Mike: It would be OK to say that the binding protocol is not capable of carrying callback information.
[10:32] Bryan Aupperle: Dave: Exactly, we would have to define a new protocol.
[10:34] anish: smells like extensibility, the spec does not define it, up to the vendor
[10:34] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: Do we need to say something in Assembly about callbacks only being available if the binding supports them?
[10:35] Bryan Aupperle: Mike: I thought Assembly has some weasel words like that.
[10:35] Bryan Aupperle: Dave: Should we say out of scope as opposed to not supported?
[10:36] Bryan Aupperle: Anish: Wording should indicate support for callbacks would be an extension.
[10:37] Mike Edwards: The Assembly specification DOES NOT say anything appropriate about the possibility of a Binding not supporting Callbacks
[10:37] Mike Edwards: we need an Assembly issue to deal with this.
[10:37] Bryan Aupperle: Anish: It is nice when extensions are enabled via XML attributes/elements.
[10:39] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: binding.ejb pseudo-schema does not discuss extensibility.
[10:39] Bryan Aupperle: Dave: I'll handle this as an editorial update.
[10:40] Bryan Aupperle: Mike: there is a ##any in the schema it should be ##other.
[10:41] Dave Booz: The SCA Assembly Model Specification [ASSEMBLY] defines the callback feature which enables asynchronous interactions between two SCA components. This specification does not define how the callback feature interacts with the Session Bean binding.
[10:53] Mark Combellack: Chat room looks as though it is back
[10:53] Bryan Aupperle: Java-118
[10:53] Bryan Aupperle: Dave reviews proposal
[10:54] Bryan Aupperle: Anish: What happens if someone uses these?
[10:54] Bryan Aupperle: Dave: I thought it is a substitution point.
[10:54] Bryan Aupperle: Mike: No meanings are defined by this spec.
[10:55] Bryan Aupperle: Anish: So why not restrict? Restricting now and allowing in future as optional would be backward compatible.
[10:56] Bryan Aupperle: Dave: These are abstract in the base schema.
[10:57] Bryan Aupperle: Mike: So based on the XSD primer, there would have to be derived types which are beyond the spec.
[10:58] Dave Booz Anish, JMS has this: <element name="wireFormat.jmsdefault" type="sca:WireFormatType" substitutionGroup="sca:wireFormat"/> <element name="operationSelector.jmsdefault" type="scaperationSelectorType" substitutionGroup="sca:operationSelector"/>
[10:58] Bryan Aupperle: Anish & Mike: We need to change the base schema to define the elements themselves as abstract.
[10:59] Bryan Aupperle: Action Item (Mike): Raise issue in Assembly against wireFormat and operationSelector to make them abstract.
[11:00] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: With the change, do we need to say anything in the pseudo-schema this spec.?
[11:02] Bryan Aupperle: Dave: The text in this proposal is exactly as in the WS binding spec. So we need to debate and resolve this in the bindings TC first.
[11:05] Bryan Aupperle: Action Item (Anish) Raise issue in Bindings TC against WS binding spec to address wireFormat and operationSelector pseudo-schema once the Assembly change is made to make these abstract.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]