Issue 5993: Base64 encoding (deployment-ftf) Source: Zuehlke Engineering (Mr. Frank Pilhofer, fpilhofer2008(at)gmail.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: in the last telecon, there was some concern about the MIME reference, which is used from the XML mapping, which explains, "For convenience, if the data type is a sequence or array of octet, the value is represented by a single SimpleValue element that holds, in the value attribute, the data in Base64 encoding." An alternative would be to add a new "BinaryValue" element to the DataValue element; the BinaryValue could then be declared to have the "base64Binary" type that is predefined by the XML Schema spec. The one argument in favor of that is that we could then depend on XML to define that element's contents (rather than referencing MIME separately). Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: July 8, 2003: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Frank Subject: Base64 encoding Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:32:24 -0400 Thread-Topic: Base64 encoding Thread-Index: AcNFduVCNT6elNUJQk+qlfjOJ4u6tg== From: "Pilhofer, Frank" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id h68HUVkM002501 Hi, in the last telecon, there was some concern about the MIME reference, which is used from the XML mapping, which explains, "For convenience, if the data type is a sequence or array of octet, the value is represented by a single SimpleValue element that holds, in the value attribute, the data in Base64 encoding." An alternative would be to add a new "BinaryValue" element to the DataValue element; the BinaryValue could then be declared to have the "base64Binary" type that is predefined by the XML Schema spec. The one argument in favor of that is that we could then depend on XML to define that element's contents (rather than referencing MIME separately). Any opinions? Frank From: Subject: Re: Deployment FTF voting (1st poll), closing 20th October 2003 20:00 GMT To: deployment-ftf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.10 March 22, 2002 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:54:41 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CollinsCRSMTP02/CedarRapids/RockwellCollins(Release 5.0.10 |March 22, 2002) at 10/17/2003 09:54:43 AM Please vote with Yes/No/Abstain for each issue resolution, as detailed in the attachment. Note: A short reason for No votes is mandatory. OMG Issue No: 5953: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5954: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5955: No. - Not sufficient rationale/justification for adding this additonal complexity. No example of problem being solved by adding this new class. OMG Issue No: 5956: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5957: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5958: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5959: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5960: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5961: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5962: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5963: No. - UUID's, Labels, Attributes should not be optional. The Attributes should clearly be required if needed. This solution causes confusion and presents difficulties for tools and applications to anticipate appropriate actions. OMG Issue No: 5964: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5983: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5984: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5985: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5986: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5993: No. Voting No on Issue 6024 requires a different solution for this issue. OMG Issue No: 6024: No. Solution allows/causes XML parsing errors. Need to re-think this solution so that validating parsers work with the XML. OMG Issue No: 6037: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6038: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6041: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6042: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6044: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6046: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6048: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6051: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6052: Yes. ------------------- snip -------------------- Andreas Hoffmann unhofer.de> cc: Subject: Deployment FTF voting (1st poll), closing 20th October 2003 20:00 GMT 10/02/2003 10:07 AM Hi FTF members, this is the first voting for the OMG Deployment FTF. For details on the issue resolutions please refer to the attached document listing all the issue resolutions of this voting. Compared to Tuesday's draft version I have added issue 5962 and moved issues 5993, 6044 and 6052 from "Resolved" to "Duplicate or merged". Anyway, this classification has no impact on the voting. In order to give all FTF members enough time to study the issue resolutions and their impacts on the specification the voting deadline is Monday 20th October, 2003, 20:00 GMT. ------------------- snip -------------------- ** Deployment FTF Voting Poll 1 ** ** Voting Deadline October 20, 2003, 20:00 GMT ** Company: Voter: Regards Andreas ==================================================================== Andreas Hoffmann Fraunhofer FOKUS - Research Institute for Open Communication Systems Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31 D - 10589 Berlin Phone: +49 30 3463-7392 Fax: +49 30 3463-8392 Email: andreas.hoffmann@fokus.fraunhofer.de ==================================================================== (See attached file: omg-deployment-ftf-01_10_03.zip) omg-deployment-ftf-01_10_031.zip Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:38:29 -0400 From: James Kulp Organization: Mercury Computer Systems, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en,pdf To: dahaverk@rockwellcollins.com CC: deployment-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Deployment FTF voting (1st poll), closing 20th October 2003 20:00 GMT Dave, I'll just try to provide a bit more explanation for the issues you didn't find acceptable (since Frank is out today). It is unfortunate that some of these issues were not raised during our discussions - or in email dialog. dahaverk@rockwellcollins.com wrote: Please vote with Yes/No/Abstain for each issue resolution, as detailed in the attachment. Note: A short reason for No votes is mandatory. OMG Issue No: 5953: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5954: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5955: No. - Not sufficient rationale/justification for adding this additonal complexity. No example of problem being solved by adding this new class. This was an issue where the class in question was being used in two places, but it turned out that it was not appropriate to re-use - thus rather than using the ComponentPackageReference class in two places, the case of using it as an implementation dependency was incorrect. It previously indicated such dependencies as pointers to implementations (ComponentPackageReference). The change specifies the dependency in a way that is simpler and lighter: that an application of a certain type had to be running, but not necessarily one that the implementer knew a package reference (implementation pointer) for. So the "complexity" of the extra class that has a single string attribute allows the dependency to be simpler, and more flexible - indicate an interface, not an implementation OMG Issue No: 5956: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5957: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5958: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5959: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5960: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5961: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5962: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5963: No. - UUID's, Labels, Attributes should not be optional. The Attributes should clearly be required if needed. This solution causes confusion and presents difficulties for tools and applications to anticipate appropriate actions. This issue as written simply says that attributes that are already optional in the spec should be expressed in a more consistent and better way. It is not making any attributes optional. If you think certain attributes in the spec should or should not be optional, that is a separate issue. UUIDs and labels were just used as examples. OMG Issue No: 5964: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5983: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5984: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5985: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5986: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5993: No. Voting No on Issue 6024 requires a different solution for this issue. Indeed this could have been specified in a standalone way since the issue 6024 change simply solved this by replacing a MIME reference to base64 encoding with the xsd:base64Binary instead -- which is already built in to XML schemas - obviating the MIME reference. OMG Issue No: 6024: No. Solution allows/causes XML parsing errors. Need to re-think this solution so that validating parsers work with the XML. Per your email with Frank, we'll have to figure out whether this is a problem with the schema or a problem with your tools. No specific error in the schema was identified. I'll try to look at this further tomorrow (Saturday). The tool you use is evidently available for a free trial! Jim OMG Issue No: 6037: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6038: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6041: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6042: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6044: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6046: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6048: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6051: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6052: Yes. ------------------- snip -------------------- Andreas Hoffmann unhofer.de> cc: Subject: Deployment FTF voting (1st poll), closing 20th October 2003 20:00 GMT 10/02/2003 10:07 AM Hi FTF members, this is the first voting for the OMG Deployment FTF. For details on the issue resolutions please refer to the attached document listing all the issue resolutions of this voting. Compared to Tuesday's draft version I have added issue 5962 and moved issues 5993, 6044 and 6052 from "Resolved" to "Duplicate or merged". Anyway, this classification has no impact on the voting. In order to give all FTF members enough time to study the issue resolutions and their impacts on the specification the voting deadline is Monday 20th October, 2003, 20:00 GMT. ------------------- snip -------------------- ** Deployment FTF Voting Poll 1 ** ** Voting Deadline October 20, 2003, 20:00 GMT ** Company: Voter: Regards Andreas ==================================================================== Andreas Hoffmann Fraunhofer FOKUS - Research Institute for Open Communication Systems Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31 D - 10589 Berlin Phone: +49 30 3463-7392 Fax: +49 30 3463-8392 Email: andreas.hoffmann@fokus.fraunhofer.de ==================================================================== (See attached file: omg-deployment-ftf-01_10_03.zip) Subject: Re: Deployment FTF voting (1st poll), closing 20th October 2003 20:00 GMT To: deployment-ftf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 From: Gerald_L_Bickle@raytheon.com Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:45:46 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NotesServer3/HDC(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 10/20/2003 09:44:34 AM OMG Issue No: 5953: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5954: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5955: No. - Not clear why another class is needed. Changing the meaning of depends on. It seems like there is different dependencies types, loading, execution, uses. This needs further thought with use cases and use case realizations to show justification. OMG Issue No: 5956: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5957: Yes, but diagrams need to be updated too OMG Issue No: 5958: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5959: Yes., chapter misspelled in 1st change OMG Issue No: 5960: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5961: no, what is the relationships between this and the install operation. What is the outcome of a createpackage? OMG Issue No: 5962: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5963: No. - It appears the changes are being made to agree with the corresponding text. I don't think the text is correct. These attributes should not be optional. OMG Issue No: 5964: NO, Which issue change has precedence 5957? No mention of updating corresponding diagrams. Without updated diagrams with text changes it is unclear why all these changes are necessary and how all these changes fit together. OMG Issue No: 5983: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5984: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5985: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5986: Yes. OMG Issue No: 5993: Yes if this valid for XML and transformation rules. solution for this issue. OMG Issue No: 6024: Yes, provided the XML is valid syntax. OMG Issue No: 6037: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6038: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6041: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6042: Yes OMG Issue No: 6044: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6046: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6048: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6051: Yes. OMG Issue No: 6052: Yes. Jerry Bickle Senior Principal Software Engineer Network Centric Systems 1010 Production Rd Fort Wayne, IN 46808-4711 260-429-6280 260-429-5060 Fax