Issue 7214: lack of shalls in specification (lwlog-rtf) Source: Raytheon (Mr. Gerald Lee Bickle, Gerald.L.Bickle(at)raytheon.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Recommendation add shalls to specification to help with testability of specification and conformance Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: April 2, 2004: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Subject: Re: LW Log issues To: Juergen Boldt X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 From: Gerald_L_Bickle@raytheon.com Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:51:05 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NotesServer3/HDC(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 04/02/2004 03:51:08 PM X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id i32KquAQ006960 None from me? here are the issues I sent to issues@omg.org and cc lw-rtf@omg.org but no response Lightweight Log Service Specification November 2003 Version 1.0 formal/03-11-03 Issue 1: lack of shalls in specification. Recommendation add shalls to specification to help with testability of Subject: RE: Lightweight Log Service RTF Vote To: "Fay, Thomas J. (US SSA)" Cc: X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 From: Gerald_L_Bickle@raytheon.com Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 15:10:32 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NotesServer3/HDC(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 05/25/2004 03:10:36 PM X-SPAM: 0.00 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id i4PKDgun026586 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. specification and conformance