Re: [sca-j] [ISSUE 106] RFC2119 Language is needed for Spring C&ISpecification - Updated Proposal

Section 4 looks much better now.

This prompts a spec question.  What's the relationship between an SCA contribution and these rules as specified in section 4?  Does the contribution play a role in resolving relative paths? Can a contribution contain a MANIFEST.MF with the spring header?  Can Spring xml files be resolved across contributions? ...etc, etc.  Is the answer obvious or should I open an issue?

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:

Mike Edwards ---07/30/2009 05:24:50 AM---Dave, Many thanks for the review - I have dealt with all your points in a new

From:

Mike Edwards <>

To:



Date:

07/30/2009 05:24 AM

Subject:

Re: [sca-j] [ISSUE 106] RFC2119 Language is needed for Spring C&I Specification - Updated Proposal

Dave, 

Many thanks for the review - I have dealt with all your points in a new revision here: 

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/33599/sca-springci-1.1-spec-WD02%2BIssue106v3.pdf 

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/33600/sca-springci-1.1-spec-WD02%2BIssue106v3.doc 

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.

Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.

IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.

Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  

Email:   

From: David Booz <> 

To:  

Date: 29/07/2009 19:17 

Subject: Re: [sca-j] [ISSUE 106] RFC2119 Language is needed for Spring C&I Specification - Updated Proposal

Hi Mike,

From the pdf:

1) line 31 - may

2) lines 87-95 seem to have some normative material. There also a lowercase 'must'. That might text might be more appropriately placed in a section on packaging? I noticed that some of this same material appears in section 4, but it's not marked and labelled there either. 

You may be surprised by all the changes this prompted.  Section 4 is now festooned with normative statements ;-) 

I removed the material from 87-95 entirely, since it is all supposed to be in section 4.

3) line 155, 195, 233 - lower case must

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:

Mike Edwards ---07/29/2009 11:44:59 AM---Anish, Comments below...

From: 

Mike Edwards <> 

To: 

OASIS Java <> 

Date: 

07/29/2009 11:44 AM 

Subject: 

Re: [sca-j] [ISSUE 106] RFC2119 Language is needed for Spring C&I Specification - Updated Proposal

Anish, 

Comments below... 

updated proposal here: 

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/33582/sca-springci-1.1-spec-WD02%2BIssue106v2.pdf 

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/33581/sca-springci-1.1-spec-WD02%2BIssue106v2.doc 

Yours, Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.

Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.

IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.

Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431 

Email:  

From: Anish Karmarkar <> 

To: OASIS Java <> 

Date: 27/07/2009 15:18 

Subject: Re: [sca-j] [ISSUE 106] RFC2119 Language is needed for Spring C&I Specification - Proposal

Thanks Mike.

Two comments:

1) Any particular reason not to reference the latest spring release 

(2.5.x) rather than 2.0.x? 

No reason - thanks for spotting this. 

2) I would like to suggest that the last stmt in section 5.1 be changed 

from:

Such an SCA Spring Component Implementation Composite Document MUST be a 

conformant SCA Composite Document, as defined by [ASSEMBLY], and MUST 

comply with the requirements specified in Section 5 of this specification.

to:

Such an SCA Spring Component Implementation Composite Document MUST be a 

conformant SCA Composite Document, as defined by [ASSEMBLY], and MUST 

comply with >>>additional constraints on the document content as defined 

in Appendix B.<<<

I'm using the language from the assembly spec. Section 5 doesn't specify 

any requirements for the composite document, but section 2 does (I 

suspect you meant to say section 2 and not 5). 

OK, thanks - updated as you suggest.

-Anish

--

PS: I'm at a f2f this week and may not be able to attend the call today.

Mike Edwards wrote:

> 

> Folks,

> 

> I've created a proposal for Issue 106 here:

> 

> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/33534/sca-springci-1.1-spec-WD02%2BIssue106.pdf 

> 

> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/33533/sca-springci-1.1-spec-WD02%2BIssue106.doc 

> 

> 

> Comments welcome

> 

> Yours,  Mike.

> 

> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.

> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.

> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.

> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  

> Email:  

> 

> 

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> /

> /

> 

> /Unless stated otherwise above:

> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 

> 741598.

> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

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 

Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU 

Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU