OASIS Mailing List Archives
View the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using
MarkMail
.
This list only
All OASIS lists
Help:
OASIS Mailing Lists Help
|
MarkMail Help
sca-assembly
185 messages in this archive
(listed by date, most recent first)
|
Thread Index
|
List Home
Re: [sca-bindings] Conformace point highlight color
From
Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com> on 30 Jun 2009 20:11:55 -0000
RE: ASSEMBLY-121 Conformance to OPTIONAL Normative Statements - Revised Proposal
From
"Eric Wells" <eric.wells@hitachisoftware.com> on 30 Jun 2009 14:28:07 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 30 Jun 2009 12:26:51 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 30 Jun 2009 08:44:32 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] ISSUE-137: Clarify the use of a binding name in areference target - proposal (c)
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 30 Jun 2009 08:41:58 -0000
ISSUE-137: Clarify the use of a binding name in a reference target -proposal (c)
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 29 Jun 2009 19:58:14 -0000
NEW ISSUE: Make support for constrainingType an optional compliance point
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 29 Jun 2009 19:18:04 -0000
Test Subcommittee Call this week??
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 29 Jun 2009 11:54:52 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 29 Jun 2009 10:17:59 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 29 Jun 2009 10:03:03 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 29 Jun 2009 09:59:46 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Spec is unclear if callback binding namesneed to be distinct from forward binding names
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 29 Jun 2009 08:50:48 -0000
NEW ISSUE: Spec is unclear if callback binding names need to be distinctfrom forward binding names
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 27 Jun 2009 08:36:59 -0000
Re: [sca-bindings] Conformace point highlight color
From
Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> on 26 Jun 2009 22:47:32 -0000
Re: [sca-bindings] Conformace point highlight color
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 26 Jun 2009 21:30:31 -0000
Conformace point highlight color
From
Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com> on 26 Jun 2009 19:23:52 -0000
RE: [sca-assembly-comment] Some more comments - relating to EventProcessing
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 25 Jun 2009 15:03:23 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 25 Jun 2009 14:47:42 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> on 25 Jun 2009 14:33:55 -0000
RE: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
"Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com> on 25 Jun 2009 14:05:22 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 25 Jun 2009 13:37:26 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> on 25 Jun 2009 12:55:05 -0000
RE: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
"Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com> on 25 Jun 2009 11:50:50 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 25 Jun 2009 11:08:18 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 25 Jun 2009 10:50:15 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] ASSEMBLY-149: Siemens comment on implementationtype conformance requirement
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 25 Jun 2009 09:40:54 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly-comment] .composite extension for composite fileis overly constraining
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 25 Jun 2009 07:49:58 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com> on 25 Jun 2009 03:04:21 -0000
RE: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
"Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com> on 24 Jun 2009 16:42:01 -0000
RE: [sca-assembly] ASSEMBLY-149: Siemens comment on implementation type conformance requirement
From
"Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com> on 24 Jun 2009 16:29:47 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] ASSEMBLY-149: Siemens comment on implementation typeconformance requirement
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 24 Jun 2009 14:25:31 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 132] Rebuttal: Against the use of portability and functions as reasons for requiring one of the existing 4 languages
From
Jim Marino <jim.marino@gmail.com> on 24 Jun 2009 14:14:15 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] Fw: [sca-assembly-comment] Comments on Public ReviewDraft 01
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 24 Jun 2009 12:12:59 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly-comment] .composite extension for composite file is overly constraining
From
Jim Marino <jim.marino@gmail.com> on 24 Jun 2009 12:06:59 -0000
RE: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 132] Rebuttal: Against the use of portability andfunctions as reasons for requiring one of the existing 4 languages
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 24 Jun 2009 12:06:21 -0000
RE: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 132] Rebuttal: Against the use of portability and functions as reasons for requiring one of the existing 4 languages
From
"Ferguson, Donald F" <Donald.Ferguson@ca.com> on 24 Jun 2009 10:43:01 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly-comment] .composite extension for composite file isoverly constraining
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 24 Jun 2009 10:36:01 -0000
RE: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 132] Rebuttal: Against the use of portability andfunctions as reasons for requiring one of the existing 4 languages
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 24 Jun 2009 10:27:05 -0000
Fw: [sca-assembly-comment] Comments on Public Review Draft 01
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 24 Jun 2009 08:13:04 -0000
Fw: [sca-assembly-comment] Some more comments
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 24 Jun 2009 07:56:56 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 132] Rebuttal: Against the use of portability andfunctions as reasons for requiring one of the existing 4 languages
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 23 Jun 2009 22:08:18 -0000
Draft minutes of 2009-06-23 are attached
From
Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com> on 23 Jun 2009 18:33:03 -0000
RE: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 132] Rebuttal: Against the use of portability and functions as reasons for requiring one of the existing 4 languages
From
"Ferguson, Donald F" <Donald.Ferguson@ca.com> on 23 Jun 2009 17:40:40 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [ISSUE 132] Rebuttal: Against the use of portability and functions as reasons for requiring one of the existing 4 languages
From
Jim Marino <jim.marino@gmail.com> on 23 Jun 2009 17:06:47 -0000
Version Control Commit by booz
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 23 Jun 2009 15:19:51 -0000
Version Control Commit by booz
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 23 Jun 2009 15:16:28 -0000
ISSUE 155: Namespace problems in C/C++ .componentType files
From
Scott Vorthmann <scottv@tibco.com> on 23 Jun 2009 14:28:06 -0000
ISSUE 154: Errors in Test_Types.xsd
From
Scott Vorthmann <scottv@tibco.com> on 23 Jun 2009 14:26:11 -0000
[ISSUE 132] Rebuttal: Against the use of portability and functions asreasons for requiring one of the existing 4 languages
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 23 Jun 2009 14:03:55 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
Scott Vorthmann <scottv@tibco.com> on 23 Jun 2009 13:56:28 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [ASSEMBLY-138] Assembly specification unclear onContribution vs Deployment - when can errors in artifacts be reported?
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 23 Jun 2009 13:29:05 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 23 Jun 2009 09:12:41 -0000
RE: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
"Eric Wells" <eric.wells@hitachisoftware.com> on 22 Jun 2009 21:03:27 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 22 Jun 2009 19:53:39 -0000
Version Control Commit by booz
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 22 Jun 2009 19:28:08 -0000
[Issue 80] Proposed directional resolution
From
Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> on 22 Jun 2009 17:52:22 -0000
RE: [sca-assembly] Comment on the status of work in the Assembly TC
From
"Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com> on 22 Jun 2009 13:45:18 -0000
Suggested documentation standards for SCA specification documents
From
Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com> on 22 Jun 2009 12:10:09 -0000
Comment on the status of work in the Assembly TC
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 22 Jun 2009 09:39:17 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 22 Jun 2009 09:30:11 -0000
[ASSEMBLY 152] Public review comment 2 from Siemens: Binding typereqiurement - Status
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 22 Jun 2009 09:23:40 -0000
NEW ISSUE: Namespace problems in C/C++ .componentType files
From
Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com> on 19 Jun 2009 13:50:19 -0000
NEW-ISSUE: Errors in Test_Types.xsd
From
Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com> on 19 Jun 2009 13:34:28 -0000
ASSEMBLY-149: Siemens comment on implementation type conformancerequirement
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 19 Jun 2009 09:43:40 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [NEW ISSUE] Assembly specification unclear onContribution vs Deployment - when can errors in artifacts be reported?
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 18 Jun 2009 20:53:07 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [NEW ISSUE] Assembly specification unclear onContribution vs Deployment - when can errors in artifacts be reported?
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 18 Jun 2009 15:17:10 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] Inconsistent and incomplete descriptions of Elementattributes and Subelements in Assembly spec
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 18 Jun 2009 14:23:03 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [NEW ISSUE] Assembly specification unclear on Contribution vs Deployment - when can errors in artifacts be reported?
From
Jim Marino <jim.marino@gmail.com> on 18 Jun 2009 13:04:09 -0000
Inconsistent and incomplete descriptions of Element attributes andSubelements in Assembly spec
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 18 Jun 2009 08:13:17 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] Two schema issues with SCA Assembly CD03-Rev1
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 18 Jun 2009 07:01:15 -0000
Two schema issues with SCA Assembly CD03-Rev1
From
Raymond Feng <rfeng@us.ibm.com> on 17 Jun 2009 19:05:46 -0000
Re: Submission of SCA Assembly Test Suite package for Public Review
From
Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> on 17 Jun 2009 15:50:36 -0000
Submission of SCA Assembly Test Suite package for Public Review
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 17 Jun 2009 08:47:16 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 17 Jun 2009 06:22:27 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 17 Jun 2009 06:21:21 -0000
Draft Minutes 2009-06-16 are attached
From
Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com> on 16 Jun 2009 18:41:06 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 16 Jun 2009 14:08:54 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 16 Jun 2009 14:03:02 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 16 Jun 2009 13:54:41 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 16 Jun 2009 13:47:12 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 16 Jun 2009 13:45:12 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] SCA Assembly CD03-Rev1
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 16 Jun 2009 13:34:36 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] SCA Assembly CD03-Rev1
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 16 Jun 2009 13:07:36 -0000
Late Draft Minutes of 2009-06-09 are attached
From
Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com> on 16 Jun 2009 12:56:01 -0000
ASSEMBLY-121 Conformance to OPTIONAL Normative Statements - Proposal
From
"Eric Wells" <eric.wells@hitachisoftware.com> on 16 Jun 2009 12:43:12 -0000
SCA Assembly CD03-Rev1
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 16 Jun 2009 12:32:48 -0000
Groups - CD03-Rev1 PDF format (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03-Rev1.pdf) uploaded
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 16 Jun 2009 12:27:52 -0000
Groups - CD03-Rev1 Word format (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03-Rev1.doc) uploaded
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 16 Jun 2009 12:23:28 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 16 Jun 2009 06:35:08 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 16 Jun 2009 06:05:30 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 15 Jun 2009 12:29:32 -0000
Fw: [sca-assembly-comment] Few comments from Siemens
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 12 Jun 2009 15:15:46 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 17:37:04 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 17:05:45 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 15:51:34 -0000
Major Update of TestCase artifacts completed - Namespaces and Package namesbrought into "OASIS friendly" form
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 10 Jun 2009 15:43:20 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 15:19:45 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 15:18:26 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 15:16:44 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 15:08:37 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 15:00:31 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 14:58:59 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 14:58:27 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 14:53:01 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 14:49:04 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 14:45:48 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 14:44:24 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 14:04:29 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 14:01:21 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 13:55:56 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 13:50:01 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 13:46:55 -0000
Version Control Commit by booz
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 13:44:31 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 12:35:11 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 12:23:56 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 12:13:05 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 11:53:14 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 11:49:05 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 10 Jun 2009 11:46:08 -0000
Rebuttal: Against the use of portability and functions as reasonsfor requiring one of the existing 4 languages
From
Jim Marino <jim.marino@gmail.com> on 10 Jun 2009 01:07:49 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 9 Jun 2009 19:26:59 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 9 Jun 2009 19:19:22 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 9 Jun 2009 18:32:34 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 9 Jun 2009 13:28:11 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 9 Jun 2009 13:17:53 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 9 Jun 2009 13:10:35 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 9 Jun 2009 13:01:43 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 9 Jun 2009 10:28:30 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 9 Jun 2009 08:53:25 -0000
Fw: [sca-assembly-comment] Rebuttal: Against the use of portability andfunctions as reasons for requiring one of the existing 4 languages
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 9 Jun 2009 08:45:48 -0000
[NEW ISSUE] wireFormat and operationSelector element declarations don'thave @abstract="true"
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 8 Jun 2009 12:32:51 -0000
[NEW ISSUE] Some TestCases can only be implemented using specificimplementation Languages
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 8 Jun 2009 12:24:17 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 8 Jun 2009 11:05:14 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 5 Jun 2009 18:25:01 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 5 Jun 2009 13:25:18 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 5 Jun 2009 13:12:42 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [NEW ISSUE] Assembly specification unclear onContribution vs Deployment - when can errors in artifacts be reported?
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 5 Jun 2009 11:51:43 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section7-10
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 4 Jun 2009 19:52:46 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [NEW ISSUE] Assembly specification unclear on Contribution vs Deployment - when can errors in artifacts be reported?
From
Jim Marino <jim.marino@gmail.com> on 4 Jun 2009 18:05:42 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [NEW ISSUE] Assembly specification unclear on Contribution vs Deployment - when can errors in artifacts be reported?
From
Jim Marino <jim.marino@gmail.com> on 4 Jun 2009 18:03:10 -0000
[NEW ISSUE] Assembly Specification does not define the Component Type of aComposite used as an Implementation
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 4 Jun 2009 14:36:21 -0000
Groups - Issue 147 - Proposal (PDF) (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03+Issue_147.pdf) uploaded
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 4 Jun 2009 14:35:33 -0000
Groups - Issue 147 - Proposal (Word) (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03+Issue_147.doc) uploaded
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 4 Jun 2009 14:34:06 -0000
Version Control Commit by booz
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 4 Jun 2009 12:03:13 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] Normative language for conformance testing requirement
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 4 Jun 2009 10:51:16 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: ASM60008 and ASM60013 are contradictory
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 4 Jun 2009 06:50:06 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Unmarked MUST on line 1030 (CD03)
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 4 Jun 2009 06:48:42 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: ASM50030 and ASM50031 (CD03) are duplicates
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 4 Jun 2009 06:47:02 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: There are no conformance statements insection 8.5 (CD03)
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 4 Jun 2009 06:45:45 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Need a normative statement for @autowireinheritance
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 4 Jun 2009 06:44:22 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: ASM50007 has a typo in it.
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 4 Jun 2009 06:42:56 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Need TAs and testcases for property/@file andproperty/@many=true
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 21:52:41 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section7-10
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 21:48:17 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] Normative language for conformance testing requirement
From
Fred Carter <fred.carter@amberpoint.com> on 3 Jun 2009 19:43:46 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] Normative language for conformance testing requirement
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 19:25:41 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: What is a constrainingType file supposed tolook like?
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 18:21:05 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section6
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 17:54:42 -0000
NEW ISSUE: ASM60008 and ASM60013 are contradictory
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 17:54:41 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] Re: reviewing ASM test assertions and testcases
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 15:01:35 -0000
NEW ISSUE: Unmarked MUST on line 1030 (CD03)
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 15:01:32 -0000
NEW ISSUE: ASM50030 and ASM50031 (CD03) are duplicates
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 14:54:32 -0000
NEW ISSUE: There are no conformance statements in section 8.5 (CD03)
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 14:39:22 -0000
NEW ISSUE: Need a normative statement for @autowire inheritance
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 14:08:29 -0000
NEW ISSUE: ASM50007 has a typo in it.
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 14:08:29 -0000
NEW ISSUE: Need TAs and testcases for property/@file and property/@many=true
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 13:08:16 -0000
Normative language for conformance testing requirement
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 3 Jun 2009 13:05:07 -0000
NEW ISSUE: What is a constrainingType file supposed to look like?
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 3 Jun 2009 12:53:11 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 3 Jun 2009 06:33:33 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 3 Jun 2009 06:32:22 -0000
Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section 13-14
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 2 Jun 2009 20:06:59 -0000
Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section 12
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 2 Jun 2009 18:08:20 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 2 Jun 2009 17:42:37 -0000
Draft Minutes of 2009-06-02 are attached
From
Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com> on 2 Jun 2009 16:36:29 -0000
Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section 7-10
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 2 Jun 2009 14:08:37 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [NEW ISSUE] Assembly specification unclear onContribution vs Deployment - when can errors in artifacts be reported?
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 2 Jun 2009 12:36:18 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [NEW ISSUE] Assembly specification unclear onContribution vs Deployment - when can errors in artifacts be reported?
From
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> on 2 Jun 2009 12:28:46 -0000
Groups - SCA Assembly Con Call modified
From
mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com on 2 Jun 2009 12:17:11 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 2 Jun 2009 11:33:03 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section6
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 2 Jun 2009 10:37:16 -0000
[ISSUE 138] Assembly specification unclear on Contribution vs Deployment -when can errors in artifacts be reported?
From
Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> on 2 Jun 2009 09:26:35 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [NEW ISSUE] Assembly specification unclear on Contribution vs Deployment - when can errors in artifacts be reported?
From
Jim Marino <jim.marino@gmail.com> on 1 Jun 2009 19:02:45 -0000
Re: [sca-assembly] [NEW ISSUE] Assembly specification unclear on Contribution vs Deployment - when can errors in artifacts be reported?
From
Jim Marino <jim.marino@gmail.com> on 1 Jun 2009 18:42:09 -0000
Version Control Commit by baupperle
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 1 Jun 2009 13:22:23 -0000
Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section 6
From
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> on 1 Jun 2009 12:21:18 -0000
Version Control Commit by mike_edwards
From
workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org on 1 Jun 2009 06:51:54 -0000
Mail converted by
MHonArc
2.5.0b2