[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] ISSUE 8 - Artifact resolution - proposal V5
Anish and I had a chat and we would like to propose the following rules for Artifact Resolution: 1. If the 'location' attribute is present. look in that location. If not found -> error If the 'location' attribute is not present: 2. Look in the referring artifact. If not found continue. 3. Look in the import list of the referring artifact. If not found -> error All the best, Ashok Mike Edwards wrote: > > Dave, > > I know that we discussed some of these points on the call yesterday, > but I think it is worth replying in > back & white so that everyone gets a clear picture. > > I will have a go at another version of the document at some point, > based on my responses. > > Comments inline as *<mje>...</mje>* > > 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: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com > > > From: David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> > To: sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org > Date: 19/08/2008 14:57 > Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] ISSUE 8 - Artifact resolution - proposal V5 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > I'm finding that wording this resolution is very difficult. I think this > is an improvement. > > I have a couple of reactions to the updates: > > 1) I would prefer to talk about the SCA artifact resolution mechanism in > general rather than specific to namespace import/export. > > *<mje>* > *The funny thing is that I thought I WAS being general. It seems as > if you interpret* > *"namespace" to mean "XML namespace", whereas I was assuming more > generality* > *in that Java packages assume a Java namespace - and indeed it was my > assumption,* > *perhaps incorrect, that any import mechanism would need some form of > "namespace"* > *to control what was being imported and exported, but that the precise > definition of the* > *form and scope of the namespace would vary depending on the type of > artifact * > *involved.* > > *But perhaps this needs to be explained explicitly.* > *</mje>* > > While it's true > that the assembly spec only defines importing/exporting namespaces, it > needs to set the rules for how this mechanism works in general to get some > consistency across the specs. > *<mje> I agree that the Assembly specs should a) lay down the general > rules and b) * > *define explicit rules for XML namespaces.* > > *The spec should say this explicitly* > *</mje>* > > I don't want to allow the namespace > specificity in the words to be used by any language binding TC as a > license > to do something completely different when they define their language > specific extensions. Line 3125-3132 should be in their own section of the > document (or merged into section 11.2.2) as they are specific to namespace > import/export. > > *<mje> OK, I'll think harder about the document structure</mje>* > > 2) line 3136 - import statements don't necessarily identify locations. > They have to be resolved before a location is known. I suppose we should > insert a paragraph about import resolution. You came close to doing > that in > 3129-3132. For example, we need to say that if there are two > contributions > which both export the same thing, what happens? > > *<mje> OK, I thought I had covered this but looks like I assume people > will understand* > *more than the text says...</mje>* > > 3) Did not follow the example you added, and in fact if I read it > correctly > is an alteration of the design. You might be hinting at what OSGI calls > split package semantics, but I'm not sure. > > 4) You're re-word of my example is good. > > I'll note that the text does not yet deal with circular dependencies and > split packages. I was hoping to get a split package use case from > Anish to > help us flesh this out some more. > > *<mje>* > *We discussed split packages on the call. There are 2 aspects to > split packages* > *- packages split between one contribution and a second contribution > that the first one* > *imports from (this is the classic case in OSGi)* > *- packages split between two or more contributions that are imported > by some* > *other contribution (not allowed for Java packages in OSGi)* > > *At the moment, I can see uses for both - I will send a separate email > discussing * > *split package usage.* > > *Circular dependencies are a different matter - I think we will need > to spell out some* > *examples to understand things better. There may not be a problem here.* > *</mje>* > > > > > Dave Booz > STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture > Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC > "Distributed objects first, then world hunger" > Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093 > e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com > > > > Mike Edwards > <mike_edwards@uk. > ibm.com> To > "OASIS Assembly" > 08/19/2008 08:27 <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org> > AM cc > > Subject > Re: [sca-assembly] ISSUE 8 - > Artifact resolution - proposal V5 > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave, > > Great stuff. > > I've done an update to try to clarify some of the language which I found a > bit hard to parse. There is no attempt to change the > meaning of the proposal, so if it doesn't read right now, I've screwed up: > > > > > Word & PDF formats for those who have trouble with Word alone - fully > change marked. > > > 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: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com > > > From: David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com> > > To: sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org > > Date: 18/08/2008 20:36 > > Subject: [sca-assembly] ISSUE 8 - Artifact resolution - proposal V4 > > > > > > > > > Here is the latest proposal for Issue 8. It includes the updated words > from Mike E in section 6.6. > > While I haven't received the use cases from Anish (AI 2008-07-22-3), I > took > a shot at rewording the body of the changes in 11.2.1 anyway. > > This closes my AI 2008-07-22-4. > > > (See attached file: Issue8-proposal-v4-sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd01.doc) > > Dave Booz > STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture > Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC > "Distributed objects first, then world hunger" > Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093 > e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com[attachment > "Issue8-proposal-v4-sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd01.doc" deleted by Mike > Edwards/UK/IBM] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > [attachment "Issue8-proposal-v5-sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd01.pdf" deleted by > David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM] [attachment > "Issue8-proposal-v5-sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd01.doc" deleted by David > Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]