Minutes of the OASIS SCA Bindings TC 8th May 2008
Attendance:
Tom Rutt / Fujitsu Limited*Bryan Aupperle / IBM
Michael Beisiegel / IBM
David Booz / IBM
Mike Edwards / IBM
Simon Holdsworth - chair / IBM
Simon Nash / IBM
Piotr Przybylski / IBM
Khanderao Kand / Oracle Corporation
Anish Karmarkar / Oracle Corporation
Ashok Malhotra - scribe / Oracle Corporation
Sanjay Patil / SAP AG*
Laurent Domenech / TIBCO Software Inc.
Nimish Hathalia / TIBCO Software Inc.
Eric Johnson / TIBCO Software Inc.
Resolutions:
· Minutes of 1st May approved without objections
· Issue 38 accepted (m: Dave Booz, s: Eric, no objections)
· Issue 34 resolved (m: Eric Johnson, s: Laurent Domenech) resolution as in issue text, with clarification that name should be “local name”
· Issue 36 resolved (m: Dave Booz, s: Ashok Malhotra) add section 2.8 Intents and Binding Configuration: “The SCA runtime MUST raise an error if the web service binding is configured with a policy intent(s) that conflicts with a binding instance's configuration. For example, it is an error to use the SOAP policy intent in combination with a WSDL binding that does not use SOAP”
· Issue 38 resolved (m: Dave Booz, s: Simon Nash)
Use @ notation for all textual references to attributes, and use emphasis for literals in text
Completed Action Items:
· 20080501-1 [Dave Booz] Write up proposed resolution to issue BINDINGS-36
· 20080501-2 [Simon Holdsworth] Add the face to face meeting to the Bindings TC calendar
Open action items:
· 20080304-3 [Simon Nash] Submit an updated proposal for resolution of issue 2.
Need to wait for other issues around conversations to be resolved.
· 20080304-9 [Editors] Update specs for outcome of ASSEMBLY-55.
· 20080304-10 [Editors] Add sentence to specs: "Any SCA runtime that claims to support this binding must abide by the requirements of this specification" (done for JMS binding spec and WS binding spec)
· 20080424-1 [Editors] Action: editors to incorporate editorial issue from Eric’s email into the specs: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200804/msg00008.html
· 20080424-2 [Eric Johnson/Anish Karmakar] Evolve the proposal on wsdl "databindings"
Target: 22nd May
· 20080501-3 [Editors] Apply changes required by Latest/This Version URI for Schema/WSDL file to bindings specifications
Raw Chat room transcript:
Ashok: scribe: Ashok
Ashok: Approval of minutes from last meeting
Ashok: Simon: added a post-meeting comment that Tom Rutt was a voting member
Ashok: Approved w/o objections
Ashok: ACTION: Dave sent in mail re. issue 36
Ashok: ACTION: Calendar updated with f2f meeting
Ashok: ACTION: Updated draft still pending
Ashok: URI proposal from liasion subcommittee
Ashok: Bryan: Value of having fine-grained ns unclear
Ashok: Waiting for Simon Nash to present his case
Ashok: Wait till Monday for Liasion Committee to decide
Ashok: Simon H: I'll put on agenda for 5/22
Ashok: NEW ISSUE: Bindings 38
Ashok: Simon: some confusion in spec between usage of uri and URI
Ashok: Simon N: we can use @uri
Ashok: Dave B moves Eric seconds to accept issue
Ashok: No objections -- issue accepted
Ashok: Discussion of issue 38
Ashok: Where does @ come from?
anish comes from xpath
Ashok: Proposal - say the bindings uri attribute
Ashok: Simon N: sometimes we use "uri"
Ashok: DaveB: Other specs use @
anish: one thing that folks do is use a different typographic convention (like <emphasis>) for attributes and elements
anish: w3c specs do that
Ashok: Italics
anish: <emphasis> in w3c's stylesheet translates to <i>..</i> in html
anish: i think
Ashok: Proposal: use @uri for attribute names
Ashok: What do other spec use?
Eric Johnson: Section 12.4.2, @name
Ashok: DaveB: @name on line 3283 in Assembly spec
Ashok: DaveB moves to use @ syntax consistently for attributes
Ashok: Simon N seconds
Ashok: Anish: use emphasis for literals
Ashok: Reads better
Ashok: Anish: amends motion to add that we use emphasis for all literals
Ashok: Anish: I assume for all bindings specs
Ashok: Approved unanimously -- Issue 38 resolved
Ashok: ISSUE: Bindings 36
Ashok: DaveB suggests new section that says raise error if conflict between binding configuration and intent
Dave Booz: binding-36: resolution text: 2.8 Intents and Binding Configuration
The SCA runtime MUST raise an error if the web service binding is
configured with a policy intent(s) that conflicts with a binding instance's
configuration. For example, it is an error to use the SOAP policy intent
in combination with a WSDL binding that does not use a SOAP encoding.
Ashok: Anish: applies to all bindings so why not add to Assembly or Policy
Ashok: DaveB: We will consider putting in Policy and possibly Assembly
Ashok: Anish: argues it shd go in Policy not in all the bindings
Ashok: Anish: change "SOAP Encoding" that has a specific meaning
anish: binding-36: resolution text: 2.8 Intents and Binding Configuration
The SCA runtime MUST raise an error if the web service binding is
configured with a policy intent(s) that conflicts with a binding instance's
configuration. For example, it is an error to use the SOAP policy intent
in combination with a WSDL binding that does not use SOAP.
Ashok: DaveB moves to accept above wording as resolution for 36
Ashok: Ashok seconds
Ashok: Accepted unanimously
Ashok: ISSUE 36 resolved
Ashok: ISSUE: Bindings 34
Ashok: Eric summarizes issue
Ashok: Anish: You mean local name of root element not the QName
Ashok: Eric agrees
Ashok: Eric moves to adopt proposed resolution to 34
Ashok: Laurent seconds
Ashok: Accepted unanimously
Ashok: Issue 34 resolved
Ashok: Simon: That covers all the issues with proposals
Ashok: Simon discusses open issues and actions to create proposals.
Ashok: AOB?
Ashok: No call next week
Ashok: Next call 5/22