Issue 7209: WRAP mode (lwlog-rtf) Source: (Mr. Dominick Paniscotti, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: When in WRAP mode, should the writeRecord(s) function delete as many records as needed to make room for a new record, or only a single record? An explicit statement would mitigate a possible interpretation issue. Further, the functional descriptions should be updated to include the desired behavior in WRAP mode and the management of the log full status once it is resolved. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 25, 2004: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Subject: RE: November 2003 Version 1.0, formal/03-11-03 Issue Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:13:43 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: November 2003 Version 1.0, formal/03-11-03 Issue Thread-Index: AcQSnKdzIFEZ2XQjRGK3V+E0HpNkqwAACucAAAAFF8AAAASj4AAAByrQAAAHPGA= From: "Paniscotti, Dominick (US SSA)" To: , Cc: "Fay, Thomas J. (US SSA)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2004 19:13:44.0170 (UTC) FILETIME=[4A7714A0:01C4129D] When in WRAP mode, should the writeRecord(s) function delete as many records as needed to make room for a new record, or only a single record? An explicit statement would mitigate a possible interpretation issue. Further, the functional descriptions should be updated to include the desired behavior in WRAP mode and the management of the log full status once it is resolved. Subject: RE: Lightweight Log Service RTF Vote Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 16:22:53 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Lightweight Log Service RTF Vote thread-index: AcRClGOFJkPCv4OyQpCT/PV9H/Xd6AAAFcIw From: "Fay, Thomas J. (US SSA)" To: Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 May 2004 20:22:54.0374 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F60B460:01C44296] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id i4PKPZun026769 Jerry, The "shalls" that were put into sections 2.3.x have not changed from the original resolution. These sections are where the method descriptions and interfaces are defined. "Shalls" were removed from the Type Definition sections because it was felt that there was a testability issue there and that the requirements that needed to be tested were sufficiently covered by the "shalls" in sections 2.3.x. The net result is that nothing changed in sections 2.2.x from the existing, formal spec. The change bars you see in the file return the text to that original version. This was for out review only. The submitted spec will not have change bars in sections 2.2.x - only in sections 2.3.x. The shalls will stay in sections 2.3.x as per the resolution. Kevin just wanted the team to consider that the interpretation of "shalls" and "wills" that is understood in the SCA space with regard to requirements may not be the same in the wider audience that will see this document. This is really a bigger issue than the LWL spec, which is why we figured that we would defer it. Tom -----Original Message----- From: Gerald_L_Bickle@raytheon.com [mailto:Gerald_L_Bickle@raytheon.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 4:11 PM To: Fay, Thomas J. (US SSA) Cc: lwlog-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Lightweight Log Service RTF Vote 7209 and 7214 confused?? issues to be voted on in this ballot can be found in the LWL RTF REPORT DRAFT2.doc Should the below resolutions show up in LWL RTF REPORT DRAFT2.doc? Issue 7209 ? reverted to the original v1.0 text for sections 2.2.x since "shalls" in the Type Definition sections have testability issues. "Shalls" in sections 2.3.x are easily tested and remain. Issue 7214 ? See Issue 7209. Discussion of a plan/policy for dealing with a document that has both "shalls" and "wills" will be deferred to the next RTF. This is needed to ensure that the broad community that views the document will interpret it correctly. I am confused on what the recommendation is for shalls in the spec. Jerry Bickle Engineering Fellow Network Centric Systems 1010 Production Rd Fort Wayne, IN 46808-4711 260-429-6280 260-429-5060 Fax "Fay, Thomas J. (US SSA)" To: Subject: RE: Lightweight Log Service RTF Vote 05/25/2004 01:12 PM Lightweight Log Service RTF members, This is the second vote for the OMG Lightweight Log Service RTF. There are six issues under consideration. For details on the issue resolutions please refer to the files listed below, which are located at ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/lightweight-log-rtf/ : * LWL RTF REPORT DRAFT2.doc * 2_PIM.pdf * 3_PSM.pdf * 4_IDL.pdf The issues to be voted on in this ballot can be found in the LWL RTF REPORT DRAFT2.doc document as well as in this email (see below). These documents have changes tracked from the previous version to aid in the review. In addition, the previous versions can be found in the "vote_1" subdirectory. Note: the change barred text in sections 2.2.x is exactly the original v1.0 wording. The voting deadline is Thursday May 27, 2004, 20:00 GMT. Sorry for the short fuse on this, but we are trying to get this wrapped up for the Orlando meeting and are getting close to the three week deadline. A summary of the changes from the previous vote follow: Issue 7203 ? editorial changes. Issue 7208 ? editorial changes in section 2, missed two "shalls" in section 3 ? should be "wills". Issue 7209 ? reverted to the original v1.0 text for sections 2.2.x since "shalls" in the Type Definition sections have testability issues. "Shalls" in sections 2.3.x are easily tested and remain. Issue 7210 ? Removed text referring to "subsequent" calls since none of the conditions specified can be guaranteed since a log producer could write the log before the "subsequent call". Reworded the text dealing with the availability status logFull state into a testable requirement. Issue 7212 ? Added conditional compilation blocks to the IDL so that it would work for 2.x IDL compilers. The IDL was compiled on both a 2.x and 3.0 compiler. Issue 7214 ? See Issue 7209. Discussion of a plan/policy for dealing with a document that has both "shalls" and "wills" will be deferred to the next RTF. This is needed to ensure that the broad community that views the document will interpret it correctly. --------------------------------------------- Ballot Company: Voter: Please vote with Yes/No/Abstain for each issue resolution. Note: A short reason for No votes is mandatory. OMG Issue No: 7203: OMG Issue No: 7208: OMG Issue No: 7209: OMG Issue No: 7210: OMG Issue No: 7212: OMG Issue No: 7214: Dominick Paniscotti Senior Member of Technical Staff, Software Engineering Communications, Navigation, Identification & Reconnaissance Division BAE SYSTEMS Mail Stop 18A11 150 Parish Drive Wayne, NJ 07474 Phone: +1 (973) 305-2515 Mobile:+1 (201) 410-3304 Fax +1 (973) 305-2745