[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] Groups - Updated CD01 Publication package (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-CD01.zip) uploaded
|
As requested in the latest SCA Assembly phone conference, I have raised
the following new issues for the specification clarifications listed below:
Jira numbers have not yet been assigned for these issues. Thanks, Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Combellack > Sent: 25 April 2008 15:43 > To: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com > Cc: sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] Groups - Updated CD01 Publication package > (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-CD01.zip) uploaded > > Hi Mike, > > I've reviewed this version (Committee Draft 01 with your 2008-04-22 > updates) of the SCA Assembly specification and I have the following > comments: > > > > Editorial comments > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Page 1: > Should the date be changed from 18th March, 2008 to 22nd April, 2008 > since that was the date of the last edit? > > Page 18: lines 298 - 303 > and Page 27: lines 747 - 754 > and Page 38: lines 1204 - 1209 > Could we reorder the descriptions of 1..1, 0..1, 1..n, 0..n to match the > order they are defined in the options. i.e. order them as 0..1, 1..1, > 0..n, 1..n or change the order of the options to be 1..1, 0..1, 1..n, > 0..n > > Page 20: line 451 > Missing space character between AccountService and {. > > Page 20: line 453 > No need for public keyword on a method of an interface. It is redundant > so should be removed. > > Page 29: line 816 > Extra blank line that should not be there? > > Page 35: line 1071 > For RFC 2119, should the text read "MUST be" rather than "MUST BE" (i.e. > lower case "be") > > Page 46: section 6.4 Wires > There appears to be no sample in this section that shows doing wiring > using the <wire/> XML tag > > Page 70: Line 2488 > Binding section header is missing a section number. > > Page 77: Line 2776 and 2780 > The cross reference [1] refers to the Java Specification and not the SCA > Binding specification as described by the text. > > Page 108: Lines 4091 - 4096 > Inconsistent indentation of the paragraph. The rest of the document does > not do this. > > Page 109: Lines 4098 - 4105 > Inconsistent indentation of the paragraph. The rest of the document does > not do this. > > Page 109: Lines 4131 - 4132 > There are other supported interface types, e.g. C and C++ > > Page 111: Lines 4189 - 4190 > I am presuming this will be filled in later? > > > > > Specification clarifications: > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Page 19: lines 376 - 378: > What is the default value of many if not specified on a property? I am > presuming that it is false > > Page 21: lines 478, 481 and 483 > I thought we could not inject into private fields. I think there is a > Jira for this one. > > Page 28: lines 771 - 774 > And Page 39: lines 1230 - 1235 > It says: > > "If an interface is specified it must provide a compatible superset of > the interface provided by the implementation, i.e. provide a superset of > the operations defined by the implementation for the reference." > > Should this be subset? > > Page 30: lines 861 - 865 > What is the default value for the many attribute on a property when many > is not specified? I am presuming that it is false. > > Page 30: lines 866 - 868 > What is the default value for the mustSupply attribute on a component > property when mustSupply is not specified? I am presuming that it is > false. > > Page 42: lines 1346 - 1348 > What is the default value for the many attribute on a composite property > when many is not specified? I am presuming that it is false. > > Page 42: lines 1349 - 1354 > What is the default value for the mustSupply attribute on a composite > property when mustSupply is not specified? I am presuming that it is > false. > > Page 61: Lines 2100 - 2101 and line 2134 > It says: > "Specifically, it cannot contain, ... property values..." > Line 2134 lists a default-property-value in the XSD > > Page 62: Lines 2150 - 2153 > It talks about "non-optional properties" and "non-optional references". > It defines non-optional properties but does not define non-optional > references. > > Is a non-optional reference, a reference with a multiplicity of 1..1 or > 1..n? > > Page 108: Lines 4095 - 4096 > "A service is remotable if it is defined by a WSDL port type or if it > [is] defined by a Java Interface marked with the @Remotable annotation" > > There is a missing "is" in the sentence. I added it above as [is] > > These are not the only ways to make a remotable service. If they are, > then C remotable services must define a WSDL interface or a Java > interface. > > This paragraph should be deleted? > > Page 109: Lines 4104 - 4105 > "Currently a service is local only if it [is] defined by a Java > Interface not marked with the @Remotable annotation." > > There is a missing "is" in the sentence. I added it above as [is] > > Does this mean all C/C++ interfaces are Remotable? > > > > Things that I am unsure of why the specification says what it does > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Not strictly document review comments. Rather general questions that I > had when reading the specification that the specification did not > explain why. > > > > Page 65: Lines 2270 - 2271 > Why is method or operation overloading not supported on @Remotable > interfaces? > > We talk about being able to use existing code/services in SCA > applications. However, with this restriction, for example, if I have an > existing RMI Java Service that uses operation overloading, then I cannot > use it with SCA. > > > > > I hope my review comments make sense. > > Thanks, > > Mark > > Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | Eastern > St. Mellons | > mcombellack@avaya.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com] > > Sent: 23 April 2008 12:16 > > To: sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: [sca-assembly] Groups - Updated CD01 Publication package > (sca- > > assembly-1.1-spec-CD01.zip) uploaded > > > > The document revision named Updated CD01 Publication package > > (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-CD01.zip) has been submitted by Dr. Mike > Edwards to > > the OASIS Service Component Architecture / Assembly (SCA-Assembly) TC > > document repository. This document is revision #1 of > > sca-assembly-1.1-spec-CD01.zip. > > > > Document Description: > > CD01 Publication package, updated to conform to the Artifact URI > proposal > > > > View Document Details: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca- > > assembly/document.php?document_id=28072 > > > > Download Document: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca- > > assembly/download.php/28072/sca-assembly-1.1-spec-CD01.zip > > > > Revision: > > This document is revision #1 of sca-assembly-1.1-spec-CD01.zip. The > > document details page referenced above will show the complete revision > > history. > > > > > > PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email > > application > > may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and > > paste > > the entire link address into the address field of your web browser. > > > > -OASIS Open Administration > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in > OASIS > at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]