Re: [sca-j] Editorial Rework of CD02 Rev1 to Merge Policy AnnotationMaterial with rest of spec -- Issue 27

Here is the latest proposal for Issue 27 ported onto the CD02 Rev1 Merge version.  The proposal is pending the comments from Dave and Mike regarding componentType of the implementation policy annotated java implementations.

(See attached file: sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge+Issue27.doc)(See attached file: sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge+Issue27.pdf)

I saved the document by only turning myself as the reviewer.. However if the word document still shows the change from both Mike and me, please turn off Mike as the reviewer then you can see the changes related to Issue 27.

Thanks.

Regards,

Yang Lei

WebSphere SCA Feature Pack Development -- SCA Architect

Phone: (919) 543 8887  T/L  441-8887

e-mail: 

SCA Feature Pack:  http://washome.austin.ibm.com/xwiki/bin/view/SCA2Team/WebHome

RTP Technical Vitality: http://swgcomm.bluehost.ibm.com/siteFiles/labs.html?location=SEUS&type=cluster

WebSphere Lab Advocate for Royal Bank of Scotland

Mike Edwards <>

Mike Edwards <> 

02/03/2009 08:09 AM

To

"OASIS Java" <>

cc

Subject

[sca-j] Editorial Rework of CD02 Rev1 to Merge Policy Annotation Material with rest of spec

Folk, 

I've carried out the editorial reworking of CD02 Rev1 to deal with the fact that the Policy Annotation material from 

the (old) Section 10 was not well integrated with the rest of the spec, as discussed in yesterday's F2F call. 

The reworked version of the spec is attached to this email. 

The changes are all intended to be editorial, so we could simply decide to accept this version as CD02 Rev2 

without the need for a formal issue.  However, if you would prefer, given the significant reworking of the material, 

I will be happy to raise an Issue to cover the changes. 

In the reworking I dealt with the comments that Simon Nash made on Issue 27, but which mostly had to do with the 

pre-existing material and not the new & changed material proposed for Issue 27: 

Comments from Simon Nash: 

  1. The definition of @Intent is missing from chapter 8.

<Done> 

 2. Section 8.2 should not define the Constants interface and

    the SCA_PREFIX constant.  These should be defined in a

    separate section.

<Done> 

 3. In section 8.19, the description of @Qualifier is hard to

    understand.  It says "The @Qualifier annotation can be applied

    to an attribute as an @Intent annotation to indicate the

    attribute provides qualifiers for the intent."  A clearer

    description would be "The @Qualifier annotation can be

    applied to an attribute of an intent annotation definition

    to indicate the attribute provides qualifiers for the intent.

    The annotation definition containing the @Qualifier annotation

    MUST be annotated with @Intent."

<Done> 

 4. The forward references from chapter 8 to chapter 10 make it

    hard to understand the chapter 8 descriptions of these annotations

    without reading chapter 10 first.  Could we move chapter 10 to

    a new position between chapters 6 and 7?

<Done - Chapter 10 is now Chapter 7> 

 5. In section 10.1, the example classes should not be declared

    in the package org.oasisopen.sca.annotations.  Instead, they

    should import the @Requires and @Reference annotation

    definitions from that package.

<Done> 

 6. The formal syntax for the @Requires annotation is specified as

      @Requires( “qualifiedIntent” | {“qualifiedIntent” [, “qualifiedIntent”]}

    which would only allow up to two intent strings to be specified.

    I believe this should say

      @Requires( “qualifiedIntent” | {“qualifiedIntent” [, “qualifiedIntent”]...} 

<Done - I have chosen a different style of EBNF for these expressions which I hope is clearer 

- comments welcome>

 7. The formal syntax for qualifiedIntent also seems more

    restrictive than it should be.  It is given as

      qualifiedIntent ::= QName | QName.qualifier | QName.qualifier1.qualifier2

    which would only allow up to two levels of qualification.

    I believe this should say

      qualifiedIntent ::= QName[.qualifier]...

<Done - as for previous> 

 8. Similar to comment 6 above, the definition of qualifiers in

    section 10.2 should be

      qualifiers ::= ”qualifier” | {“qualifier” [, “qualifier”]... }

<Done - as for previous> 

 9. In section 10.2, the definition of qualifier is

      qualifier ::= NCName | NCName/qualifier

    which uses "/" as a separator.  This is inconsistent with

    section 10.1, which used "." as a separator.

<Done - "." now used as separator> 

10. In section 10.2.1, the last sentence of the second paragraph

    is misleading.  It says "These String constants are then

    available for use with the @Requires annotation and it should

    also be possible to use one or more of them as parameters to

    the @Intent annotation."  In fact they cannot be used as

    parameters to the @Intent annotation, but they are available

    for use as parameters to the specific intent annotation that

    defines them.

<Done> 

11. Section 10.3 says that intent annotations can be used on a class,

    an interface, a method or a field.  However, the definitions in

    chapter 8 say that these annotations can also be used on a parameter.

    The bulleted list in section 10.3 should include a bullet for

    "constructor parameter".

<Done> 

12. In section 10.3, the second last paragraph says that "If an

    annotation is specified at both the class/interface level and

    the method or field level, then the method or field level

    annotation completely overrides the class level annotation of

    the same type."  In this, the word "type" is not very precise.

    It would be clearer to say "... the same base intent name."

    using the precise terminology of section 10.1.

<Done> 

13. There are a number of problems with Example 2b in section 10.3.1.

    a. The <service> definitions for HelloService and HelloChildService

       should be inside the <component> definitions for

       HelloServiceComponent and HelloChildServiceComponent, not

       free-floating inside the <composite> definition.

    b. The <operation> definitions should not be within <component>

       defintions.  I believe the intention may have been to put them

       within <service> definitions.

    c. <operation> elements within <service> definitions were

       recently removed from the Assembly spec because of a decision

       by the Policy TC.

    d. The contents of the <operation> definitions don't seem

       consistent.  For the operations in HelloService, the <operation>

       elements provide fully explicit definitions of the intents that

       apply to the operations.  However, for the operations in

       HelloChildService, some of the <operation> elements only provide

       partial definitions of the intents that apply.  Specifically,

         "hello" specifies "confidentiality/transport" but does not

            specify "authentication" and "integrity/transport".

         "helloWorld" specifies "authentication" but does not

            specify "integrity/transport" or "confidentiality/message"

<The problems here are so extensive as to require the raising of a new issue > 

14. Section 10.4 refers to a component type document associated

    with a Java class.  We no longer have component type documents

    for <implementation.java>.  Should this reference be removed?

<Done> 

15. Section 10.4.  The general rule for intents is not that they

    represent fundamental requirements of an implementation, but

    that they represents restrictions that can't be relaxed.  So

    an intent specified by an implementation could be overriden by

    some other intent that is more restrictive, but not by some

    other intent that is less restrictive.

<Done> 

16. Section 10.5 says that @PolicySets can be used on a class,

    an interface, a method or a field.  However, section 8.17 says

    that this annotation can also be used on a parameter.  The

    bulleted list in section 10.5 should include a bullet for

    "constructor parameter".

17. In the example in section 10.6.1, the Java interface declarations

    use dot-qualified names, which isn't correct Java syntax.  Also,

    these names use a "service." prefix which should be changed to

    "services." so that it is consistent with the code following

    these delarations.

<Done> 

18. In section 10.6.2, the PermitAll and DenyAll bullets have some

    added text that is bulleted but shouldn't be.

<Part of Issue 27 - not changed> 

19. In section 10.6.2.1, should the fromUSDollarToCurrency method

    be declared in the AccountService interface?  It currently

    only appears in the implementation class. 

<Left this one - I think there may be larger problems with the sample that need dealing 

with under another issue> 

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.

Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.

IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.

Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  

Email:  

Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU 

(See attached file: sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge.doc)(See attached file: sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge.pdf)---------------------------------------------------------------------

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 

sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge+Issue27.doc

sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge+Issue27.pdf

sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge.doc

sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge.pdf