Re: [sca-j] new documents to review

From
David Booz <>
Date
2008-12-18T16:28:52+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [sca-j] new documents to review
Thanks for the quick review.  See below.

As a result of these comments, I have started a rev4 containing these changes.  If there are other review comments which are editorial, I'll incorporate them also and publish rev4 some time before our next call in Jan.

Dave Booz

STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture

Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC

"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"

Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093  or  8-295-6093

e-mail:

C Vamsi ---12/17/2008 03:11:53 AM---A few comments on CAA spec are given below: 0. There is "[1]" is the doc file name.  Can we get rid

From:

C Vamsi <>

To:

David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS

Cc:



Date:

12/17/2008 03:11 AM

Subject:

Re: [sca-j] new documents to review

A few comments on CAA spec are given below:

0. There is "[1]" is the doc file name.  Can we get rid of that?

<dab> That convention seems to have been started during creation of

CD01 and I didn't want to deviate.  All of the revs are like that.

</dab>

1. In page 1, under This Version, it says rev2 instead of rev3.

<dab> Good catch. No idea how I missed it will all the other

editorial stuff. </dab>

2. In section 7.1, the method descriptions for ComponentContext methods

seem to appear in the same order as the methods in the interface definition

except for the cast() method.  Change the interface definition so that

getRequestContext() in line 665 appears before cast() at line 662.

<dab> This is editorial, so I made the change. </dab>

3. Now that we say that the default name for @Property and @Reference

annotation on a setter method is the JavaBeans property name, should we add

a reference to JavaBeans spec?

<dab> Good idea. This is editorial, so I did it. </dab>

4. The text in lines 1704 thru 1706 is: "A component MUST NOT have two

services with the same Java simple name. If a Java implementation needs to

realize two services with the same Java simple name then this can be

achieved through subclassing of the interface."

I do not understand the second sentence in this.  Does it mean there will

be two services with the same name?? Can someone please explain?

Also, the text that is deleted seem to talk about realizing two services

with the same interface.  Whereas the new text is talking about two

services with same Java simple name.  The text is from resolution of

ISSUE-56 resolved at F2F in Nov.  I apologize for the late turn around on

this.

<dab> No, there will not be two services with the same name.  The sub-

classed simple name would have to be different from the parent

simple name.  The reason for the subclassing is that both services

provide the same operations. We clarified the terminology from 

interface to simple name because interface name could be taken to

mean the simple name plus the package name. </dab>

++Vamsi

Apache Tuscany Committer  http://tuscany.apache.org

Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC  http://geronimo.apache.org

                                                                           

             David Booz                                                    

             <>                                             

                                                                        To 

             17/12/2008 01:58                    

                                                                        cc 

                                                                           

                                                                   Subject 

                                       [sca-j] new documents to review     

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

There is now a Java CAA rev3 [1],[2] with 56,75, and 111 applied.  Anish,

there were a few editorial problems with your changes in rev2 that I fixed

up, but I did not do a thorough review of your changes.

[1]

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30417/sca-javacaa-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd01-rev3.doc

[2]

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30419/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd01-rev3.pdf

This is also a working draft 02 for the Java C&I spec  [3],[4] (I started

with 2 because there was a previous draft, if you don't like it I don't

care) with issues 32 and 55 applied as well as a bunch of editorial stuff

to get it in line with namespaces, document conventions, etc.  Since there

is no CD01 for this document, I guessed that I was supposed to make this a

WD instead of a rev.

[3]

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30416/sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd02.doc

[4]

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30415/sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd02.pdf

Dave Booz

STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture

Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC

"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"

Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093  or  8-295-6093

e-mail:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php