Re: Issue R21 and etc

[Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>]

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. :-)


Thanks!



Regards,
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.
>
>
>