RE: [sca-j] [ISSUE 1] Accessing SCA Services from non-SCA component code -Formal Proposal

Mark,

Looks fine to me, thanks for the update.

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:  

From:
"Mark Combellack" <>

To:
<>,
"David Booz" <>, Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB

Date:
19/03/2009 15:01

Subject:
RE: [sca-j] [ISSUE 1] Accessing SCA
Services from non-SCA component code - Formal Proposal

Hi,

 

Thanks Mike for putting all
the pieces of this proposal together.

 

I’ve updated the text of the
proposal to incorporate feedback from Dave and other earlier comments on
the mailing list. The changes I have made are:

 

Corrected the import statements
in the sample code in section 4.2.1

Delete text at end of section
8.1 which talked about non-SCA Clients using the ComponentContext to look
up services

Changed private defaultFactory
to protected in section 8.9

Changed private defaultFactory
to protected in Appendix B.1.2

Trimmed the implementation
code out of the SCAClientFactory in section 8.9

Changed SCA domain to SCA Domain
in the modified text to be consistent with the rest of the specification

Delete paragraph saying vendors
are free to replace SCAFactoryFinder with their own version

Deleted option 4 in Appendix
B.1.4 

It should be noted that I have
not addressed two of Dave’s issues. These are the last bit of point 2
and point 3

 

I have created a new revision
2 of this proposal which can be found at:

 

Proposal (PDF): http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31746/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev3%20Issue1%20rev%202.pdf

Proposal (Word): http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31745/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev3%20Issue1%20rev%202.doc

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

Mark Combellack|
Software Developer|
Avaya |
Eastern Business
Park | St.
Mellons | Cardiff
| CF3
5EA | Voice:
+44 (0) 29 2081 7624 |


From: David Booz [mailto:]

Sent: 18 March 2009 17:20

To: 

Subject: Re: [sca-j] [ISSUE 1] Accessing SCA Services from non-SCA
component code - Formal Proposal

 

All line numbers are from the pdf.

1) delete works for me

[Mark Combellack] Deleted
this text

2) I don't feel strongly about the
full source being in an appendix, if there's a good reason, I am ok with
it. My point on #2 was focused on the FactoryFinder, and esp. in that it
appears on line 1179. Option4 in B.1.4 is not an option for vendors, we
removed that in the last call. 

[Mark Combellack] Deleted
option 4

And further, I don't think any of
the implementation of those SCAClientFactory methods should appear in the
body of the spec (near line 1179). Appendix is fine.

Concretely I think you should remove lines 1164, 1168, 1172, 1176-1185,
and lines 2776-2779. 

[Mark Combellack] Deleted
implementation code in the text in the lines specified.

If we have to publish in the spec,
all the classes that are part of the OASIS ref impl, then I think we should
also consider merging the factory finder into the OASIS SCAClientFactory
since it's no longer an SPI (and then we can remove B.1.3 entirely).

[Mark Combellack] I have
not addressed this issue

3) The point here was the info in B.1.4, line 2745 is actually part of
the end user programming model (option1 and option2), and thus I think
it should appear in the body of the spec somewhere near or in 8.9. 

[Mark Combellack] I have
not addressed this issue

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:

Mike
Edwards ---03/18/2009 10:19:16 AM---Dave, In response:

From:

Mike Edwards <>

To:



Date:

03/18/2009 10:19 AM

Subject:

Re: [sca-j] [ISSUE 1] Accessing SCA Services from non-SCA component code
- Formal Proposal

Dave, 

In response: 

1) I simply missed it. I propose that we remove the final paragraph of
section 8.1. 

2) I think there is a problem here - we are defining code that WILL be
published as artifacts of the OASIS SCA-J TC

If they are not published in the spec, what standing do they have?

Personally, I see no problem in publishing the code in full in the Appendix..
Their standing is then very clear.

The fact that the implementation is there for all to see is not a problem
in my opinion. 

3) I chose the appendix for the information for the providers since this
is a very different level of material from a description of

APIs, which is what the main part of the spec is supposed to be (from its
very title!!). I suppose this material could be placed into

some new section in the body of the spec, which would have to be given
a title like SCAClient SPI, but I don't feel very

enthusiastic about doing it that way.

I'm not sure how much of this information is useful to end users. Perhaps
if you could point it out in detail, we could agree

to include that in the main text. The problem I see is that for a given
provider, the user information is likely to be unique to

that provider. 

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: 

From:

David Booz <>

To:



Date:

18/03/2009 13:46

Subject:

Re: [sca-j] [ISSUE 1] Accessing
SCA Services from non-SCA component code - Formal Proposal

 

Thanks for writing this up. It's a really good start. Just a couple of
comments:

1) I was surprised that you didn't address your Word comment at the end
of section 8.1

2) I don't think we want to expose the implementation of the SCAClientFactory
methods in the spec....esp. the FactoryFinder usage. I think we do need
to expose the defaultFactory attribute as that is the injection point for
vendors. Further, section B.1.3 goes into detail about FactoryFinder being
overridden, but I thought we agreed on the last call that factory finder
had become an implementation detail of the OASIS SCAClientFactory. Vendors
will replace SCAClientFactory (possibly through injection) and therefore
the finder factory becomes moot. This comment ripples into B.1.4 also.

3) There's good info at the start of B.1.3 and in B.1.4 about what vendors
have to do, including the text about how to override the SCAClientFactory
class. Is an appendix really the right place for that? It's always difficult
to balance writing the specs for vendors vs the vendor's users/customers.
Seems that some of this is very important for users to know.

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:

Mike
Edwards ---03/17/2009 10:20:04 AM---Folks, I have created a formal proposal
for Issue 1 based on CD02 Rev3 and on

From: 

Mike Edwards <>

To: 

"OASIS Java" <>

Date: 

03/17/2009 10:20 AM 

Subject: 

[sca-j] [ISSUE 1] Accessing SCA Services from non-SCA component code -
Formal Proposal

 

Folks, 

I have created a formal proposal for Issue 1 based on CD02 Rev3 and on
Mark's latest email: 

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/31702/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev3%2BIssue1.pdf

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/31701/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev3%2BIssue1.doc

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 

 

 

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 

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