I'd say that publishing a modified (in this case annotated) version of the specification might have licensing issues. Also, as there is no "compliance test" or a clear "compliance definition" on the spec, your annotations around this area might be controversial.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Kevin Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that named annotations would be more clear since there is not > a direct mapping from line number to compliance point. A compliance > point may cover n lines or a single line may have n compliance points. > > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Kevin Williams wrote: > > > I'd like to add an annotated version of the SCA Java Common > > > Annotations and APIs specification somewhere in the project so that I > > > can reference individual functional requirements from the tests. Does > > > it make sense to add this as an attachment to the Java SCA > > > Documentation wiki page? > > > > > If the references are from the tests to the spec, it should be > > possible to use spec line numbers and not modify the spec. > > Is there some problem with this? > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --Kevin > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Kevin Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> I would like to tie individual tests in this new suite to specific > > >> functional requirements from the specifications. The best way to do > > >> this may be to reference named requirements from annotated versions of > > >> the specs. > > >> > > >> Would it make sense to store these annotated versions somewhere in > the project? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> --Kevin > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > +1 > > >> > > > >> > ++Vamsi > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Kevin Williams <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > I am thinking of adding a new test bucket specifically for > > >> > > verification testing against the specification set. I believe it > > >> > > would add value to the project and may also be a place where > > >> > > developers new to Tuscany might contribute. Does this sound > like a > > >> > > reasonable idea? > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > --Kevin > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
