Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
TUSCANY-2164 describes an issue that has been resolved in OASIS
as ASSEMBLY-27.  The current implementation is correct according to
the OSOA 1.0 specs, but there are good reasons to change it to
align with the OASIS resolution of this issue.  This raises the
general question of how Tuscany should handle differences between
the OSOA and OASIS specs.

Changes made by OASIS can fall into the following categories:
1. Fixing clear errors in the spec.
2. Clarfication of ambiguities or inconsistencies.
3. Minor improvements.
4. Major changes.

For categories 1 and 2, Tuscany is incorporating these on an
ongoing basis.  For category 4, I'd suggest that we hold off on
these for now until the OASIS work gets further along.  For
category 3, I think we should look at these changes on a
case by case basis and decide whether to incorporate them.

For all categories, I think it would be useful to maintain a
Wiki page that lists the OASIS issue resolutions that are currently
incorporated in the Tuscany SCA Java implementation.

For OASIS issue ASSEMBLY-27 (TUSCANY-2164), I think the OASIS change
is an improvement and we should implement it in Tuscany.

What do others think about any or all of the above?

  Simon


Sounds good to me. I'd suggest to create Tuscany JIRAs to reference the OASIS JIRAs that we are implementing, put them in a new OASIS JIRA category and list them in our release notes.

I'd like to leave the door open to category 4 changes, which we can evaluate on a case by case basis.

+1 for TUSCANY-2164.


The last few days we've started to discuss the idea of having 1.x and 2.0 streams (I still need to catch up on that discussion after a few days away with little email connectivity).

With that perspective I'd suggest the following approach:
- categories 1, 2, 3 in stream 1.x
- category 1, 2, 3, 4 in stream 2.0

Thoughts?
--
Jean-Sebastien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to