[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Ex-Choreology issues?
Dear
Mark,
I
understood that Eric volunteered to do that actually, but as either Eric has
been diverted or that was not his understanding I will
oblige.
More information on the content of each issue and its proposed
disposition is contained in the attached document.
Here is my (i.e. Tony's) current take: 146 certainly requires discussion - I think in terms of the general discussion on what the architecture and aims of CF are - but it is Mark's issue rather than ours. 208 is very relevant still but needs to be tackled after we have agreed the basic 'shape' of the CF specification. Of the others, Martin and I both agree that the following Bug numbers are superseded by the new text (or whatever designation you wish to assign): 159, 160, 161, 164, 166, 167, 170, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 180, 194, 203, 204, 207 So I suggest these are disposed of forthwith. The remainder are felt by either Martin, or Tony, or us both, to harbour something that may be worth discussing. These are: 162, 163, 165, 168, 169, 171, 172, 175, 178, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 205, 206. Perhaps we can have a pass through these on the next call or at the F2F. Best Regards Tony Best
Regards, Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] Sent: 07 February 2005 10:19 To: ws-caf Subject: [ws-caf] Ex-Choreology issues? In the last teleconference it was agreed that
someone (Tony?) would send round the list of Choreology issues that were made
against old versions of WS-CF and are now no longer valid before the
f2f.
Mark.
|
2005-01-28_Previous_Choreology_comments_on_CF.doc
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]