opencsa-liaison — archive

Use of "may", "must", etc.

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:44:00 -0000

hi, On Dec 04, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Bryan Aupperle wrote: > > A couple of examples we have come across so far: > > Service interfaces may be annotated to specify whether their > contract is conversational, as described in the Assembly > Specification [ASSEMBLY] using the @Conversational annotation. > Note for C++, annotations are currently anticipated to be processed > by tools so annotated source, in and of itself, does not force any > behavior on anything other than a annotation processor. The > conversational intent in the SCDL is what is meaningful. Thus use > of "MAY" is not appropriate here. Replacing "may" with "can" is > not grammatically correct. > > The data exchange semantics for calls to local services is by- > reference. This means that code must be written with the knowledge > that changes made to parameters (other than simple types) by either > the client or the provider of the service can be seen by the other. > This is not really a compliance point (I would not expect a test > for it) but clearly guidance to someone reading the specification > intending to implement components. Removal or "must" is awkward > and other options are wordier. How about "This means that code has to be written with ... " - at least in this instance its easy. I'm puzzled by the first example. Why isn't this the use of may, in the RFC sense? Is the wording saying that the use of @Conversational is meaningless? If not then i don't see why RFC 2119 doesn't apply. If so, then why say anything about it. I am confused. cheers, jeff > > > > Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D. > STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect > Master Inventor > > Research Triangle Park, NC > +1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508) > Internet Address: [email protected] > > > "Patil, Sanjay"