 SCA C and C++ Telecon (Conference Call) |
|
| Name | SCA C and C++ Telecon (Conference Call) |
| Time | Thursday, 03 January 2008, 11:00am to 12:00pm EST
(Thursday, 03 January 2008, 04:00pm to 05:00pm UTC) |
| Description | Chat Room http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/sca-c-cpp-TC |
| Minutes | 0. Role Bryan Aupperle David Haney Pete Robbins 1. Agenda bashing 2. Accept minutes from SCA-C-C++ TC meeting of 13 December Minutes Approved 3. Action Items None 4. New Issues a. http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/CCPP-31 Should C++ Spec define annotations? Accepted 5. Issue Discussion a. http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/CCPP-9 C++ Namespace names Update: Java TC has not discussed. Simon Nash favors leaving as is until a non-compatible change is made. Mary McRae indicates that changing osoa to oasis is all that is necessary. b. http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/CCPP-31 Should C++ Spec define annotations? (if accepted) Agreed to adopt option 2 of the proposal. Directions to editors: - Move two sections with annotations to appendices - Add text to first annotation appendix clearly stating that annotations are optional, but that if they are used, the form defined in the appendices is to be used. If they are used an annotation processor converts them to SCDL as described. Also have text that clearly states that the SCA runtime only processes the SCDL. - Scrub the remaining text removing any references to, examples of, etc. of annotations. Approval of these minutes will constitute a resolution of this issue. 6. Conformance Statements: - Are the current conformance statements appropriate? - Are the current conformance statements worded properly? - Are additional conformance statements needed? Start with Section 3 of the current C++ WD (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/25974/sca-cppcni-1.1-spec-wd-02.doc) AI to Pete: Create header files. Lines 583, 585: container => SCA runtime. Also should these be MUST instead of MAY? Need to look at Java. Line 693: Delete first sentence and paragraph starting at line 570 Line 721-722: communication with service provider => SCA runtime Line 895: will => MUST Lines 897-898: This needs to be reworded to take the resolution of issue 25. (We had further discussion on callback objects - we all need to review this both in the Java specs and in the C++ APIs.) Lines 909-910: service provider => SCA runtime Line 912: Delete last sentence. Reword first sentence to make restrictions explicit. 7. AOB |
| Agenda | 0. Role 1. Agenda bashing 2. Accept minutes from SCA-C-C++ TC meeting of 13 December 3. Action Items None 4. New Issues a. http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/CCPP-31 Should C++ Spec define annotations? 5. Issue Discussion a. http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/CCPP-9 C++ Namespace names b. http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/CCPP-31 Should C++ Spec define annotations? (if accepted) 6. Conformance Statements: - Are the current conformance statements appropriate? - Are the current conformance statements worded properly? - Are additional conformance statements needed? Start with Section 3 of the current C++ WD (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/25974/sca-cppcni-1.1-spec-wd-02.doc) 7. AOB |
| Submitter | Dr. Bryan Aupperle |
| Group | OASIS Service Component Architecture / C and C++ (SCA-C-C++) TC |
| Access | This event is visible to OASIS Service Component Architecture / C and C++ (SCA-C-C++) TC and shared with
|