Graham,
See replies inline.
Simon
Graham Charters wrote:
>
> Hi Simon, thanks for taking the time to look at the proposal. I've
> added some comments below.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Graham.
>
>
>
> Graham Charters PhD CEng MBCS CITP
> STSM, AIM Technical Lead OSGi Expert Groups, Master Inventor, UKISA
> Technical Staff Member
> IBM United Kingdom Limited, MP 146, Hursley Park, Winchester, SO21 2JN, UK
> Tel: (Ext) +44-1962-816527 (Int) 7-246527 (Fax) +44-1962-818999
> Internet:
>
>
> Simon Nash <> wrote on 09/02/2009 14:49:39:
>
> > [image removed]
> >
> > Re: [sca-j] JAVA-125: proposed resolution
> >
> > Simon Nash
> >
> > to:
> >
> > sca-j
> >
> > 09/02/2009 14:50
> >
> > Graham,
> > Thanks for doing this. I have two comments.
> >
> > 1. I don't think it should be illegal to say @Remotable on the
> > Java interface as well as on <interface.java>. We allow a
> > callback interface to be specified on <interface.java> when
> > it is also specified using a @Callback annotation on the
> > forward Java interface. This case seems extremely similar.
> >
>
> This design was based on the belief that @Remotable was similar to
> intents and if the developer has made a statement with the annotation we
> shouldn't be changing that statement. If we override an @Remotable and
> say "remotable=false", then local invocations would start using
> by-reference semantics where an implementation may have assumed it would
> receive a copy. This isn't clear cut, because the absence of @Remotable
> may or may not have been a conscious choice, and therefore we can't say
> whether specifying "remotable=true" is overriding a conscious decision
> to leave off @Remotable, or whether it's just the first time remotable
> has been considered for the interface.
>
I agree that if the interface says @Remotable, then it wouldn't
be valid for <interface.java> to say remotable="false". I think
the other combinations are all OK:
interface says nothing, <interface.java> says remotable="false"
interface says nothing, <interface.java> says remotable="true"
interface says @Remotable, <interface.java> says remotable="true"
I understood the wording in your proposal your proposal to be
disallowing the third of these. My comment was intended to apply
to this case, saying that it should be allowed.
> > 2. Given that remotable interfaces are an assembly-level concept,
> > and the base definition of <interface> is part of the assembly
> > specification, it seems strange for SCA to only define the
> > @remotable attribute for <interface.java>. Would it make sense
> > for this attribute to be part of the base <interface> element?
> >
>
> I believed that this had been raised in the assembly TC prior to the
> @remotable attribute being added to the C/C++ specs, but Bryan has
> clarified to me that this is in fact not the case. I will therefore
> raise this as an issue in the Assembly TC. If that is accepted, we will
> still need some statement for how the attribute and annotation interact.
>
Thanks for doing this. I agree that the Assembly issue does
not replace the need for this sca-j issue.
Simon
>
> > Simon
> >
> > Graham Charters wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Please find attached a document containing a proposed resolution to
> > > JAVA-125. The edits are as follows:
> > >
> > > 1. Section 3.1 - add and define a new @remotable attribute. Also
> add a
> > > new conformance statement for the relationship between the @Remotable
> > > annotation and the @remotable attribute.
> > > 2. Appendix A - add the attribute definition to the XML schema for
> > > interface.java.
> > >
> > > Changes considered, but excluded:
> > > 1. Considered changing section 2.1.2 but this seemed to be
> specifically
> > > covering the metadata in the Java code, rather than the general
> concept
> > > of 'remotable'.
> > > 2. Considered having an @remotableCallback attribute, but given it is
> > > an error to mix remote and local interfaces (section 6.7), I concluded
> > > the @remotable attribute should apply to both.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Graham.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Graham Charters PhD CEng MBCS CITP
> > > STSM, AIM Technical Lead OSGi Expert Groups, Master Inventor, UKISA
> > > Technical Staff Member
> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited, MP 146, Hursley Park, Winchester, SO21
> 2JN, UK
> > > Tel: (Ext) +44-1962-816527 (Int) 7-246527 (Fax) +44-1962-818999
> > > Internet:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > /
> > > /
> > >
> > > /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/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /
> /
>
> /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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
