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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel-spec-edit message

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

Subject: Re: Issue R21 and etc

Hi Monica,

See below ...

Monica J. Martin wrote:

>> Alex Yiu wrote: Hi, all,
>> A updated draft of spec document is attached in this email. (I still 
>> need to update Appendix H for R3 and I have not committed the changes 
>> to the CVS yet)
>> I have applied Issue R16, R1, R21.
> Alex, R21 was approved in Wednesday's call.  In addition, I believe we 
> noted there are two parts of this: Declaring variable references to 
> the associated scope and the resolution of those references to the 
> associated scope and not the ancestor. I see these as different.  If 
> we wish to break SA0086 into two parts, I don't know how one static 
> analysis requirement for two conditions differentiates that. I see 
> them as different requirements and different static analysis 
> requirements.
> Thanks.

To me, it is a "six vs half-a-dozen" situation. Just one version of 
editing requires more text editing. :-) ... I would respect the issue 
approval procedure and your preference.

I was a bit lazy to read up details of proposal last Wednesday. Next 
time, I would drill down into details more next time. :-)


Alex Yiu

>> *** Monica,
>> for Issue R21,
>> May I suggest a slight different way to fix the same editorial issue?
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200610/msg00064.html
>> Your proposal is to have add another static analysis entry for:
>>    "The variable references are resolved to the associated scope only
>>    and MUST NOT be resolved to the ancestor scopes.".
>> And to simplify the existing SA00086 to just contain the text for:
>>    "Variables of the same names MUST NOT be explicitly declared in the
>>    associated scope. This requirement MUST be enforced by static 
>> analysis."
>> Current SA00086 text actually contain both pieces of text. I am 
>> wondering whether it is OK to just add one more link SA00086 in 
>> section 12.7 for the first piece of text. (As edited in the attached 
>> MS-Word Doc.)
>> I guess this editorial change requires less text changes and achieve 
>> the same result. Do you agree? Please let me know.
>> If you still prefer your original way of editoral changes, I am OK also.
>> *** Danny and Mark, if you guys have time, you could also verify the 
>> changes for R16 and R1.

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