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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-policy message

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


Subject: ISSUE-106: Extensibility of Intents


http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-106

Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com

Inactive hide details for ashok malhotra ---09/23/2009 02:35:14 PM---This comes out of a discussion of POLICY-97 from this Mondashok malhotra ---09/23/2009 02:35:14 PM---This comes out of a discussion of POLICY-97 from this Monday's call. The question has to do with who


From:

ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>

To:

OASIS Policy <sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org>

Date:

09/23/2009 02:35 PM

Subject:

[sca-policy] NEW ISSUE: Extensibility of Intents





This comes out of a discussion of POLICY-97 from this Monday's call.
The question has to do with who can extend intent definitions and the
consequences
of such extensions.

The spec currently says: "SCA normatively defines a set of core intents
that all SCA implementations are expected to support, to ensure a
minimum level of portability. Users of SCA can define new intents, or
extend the qualifier set of existing intents."

To me, this says that vendors can add their own intents and perhaps
additional qualifiers to the intents defined in the Policy Framework
specification.  We understand that these extensions will not be
interoperable.  Vendors cannot change the default qualifier for intents
defined in the Policy Framework spec.

The other discussion thread was about changes in intent definitions --
new intents, new qualifiers, changes in defaults -- that would occur in
future versions of the Policy Framework specification.   Clearly, such
changes may occur and I argued that this should change the namespace of
the specification and, in effect, create a new version of the spec.

So, two questions:

1. Do we need to clarify the extensions that vendors can make?
2. Do we need to discuss changes that may occur in future versions of
the Policy Framework specification?
Note that we don't talk about such evolution in other sister SCA specs.

--
All the best, Ashok

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 





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