[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Review comments on sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev4.doc (sentout on 6th Feb)
Line 1417: Is "strict" needed? It seems fine to me. <vamsi> It is also ok to remove this "strict" here, as is the case in the rest of the document where a reference to subset is used. "Compatible means that the component reference interface is the same or is a strict subset of the composite reference interface."-- In case the "same" here means 'the exact same interface (for e.g., including the name of interface in case of Java)' then we are better off getting rid of "strict" as it will automatically cover the case of an interface with same set of operations too. May be I am worried too much ;( I will leave it up to the editors and relax :o) </vamsi> Line 2476: says, "This can be done using the @AllowsPassByReference annotation." - Sounds as if this is the only way of doing it! The only way for a Java impl, but what about all the other impl types? <vamsi> I think we should explicitly say this. Suggest using something like, "For e.g., for implementations in Java, this can be done using the @AllowsPassByReference annotation." </vamsi> ++Vamsi Apache Tuscany Committer http://tuscany.apache.org Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC http://geronimo.apache.org Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk. ibm.com> To "OASIS Assembly" 12/02/2009 17:26 <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org> cc Subject Re: [sca-assembly] Review comments on sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev4.doc (sent out on 6th Feb) Vamsi, Many thanks again. A very thorough review. Comments inline. I have a Rev5 underway that incorporates all the changes described below. 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: C Vamsi <vamsic007@in.ibm.com> To: Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: "OASIS Assembly" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: 11/02/2009 15:58 Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Review comments on sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev4.doc (sent out on 6th Feb) Mike, I have completed review of this part before you sent out a new version of sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev4.doc today. Please let me know if I should update the line numbers to the ones from the new doc. ++Vamsi Apache Tuscany Committer http://tuscany.apache.org Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC http://geronimo.apache.org C Vamsi/India/IBM@I BMIN To "OASIS Assembly" 11/02/2009 20:38 <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org> cc Subject [sca-assembly] Review comments on sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev4.doc (sent out on 6th Feb) There are now two sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev4.doc documents, one sent out today and the other on 6th Feb. The following comments are based on sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev4.doc sent out on 6th Feb. Comments for chapters 5 through 12 based on "sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev4.doc" -- Committee Draft 02 - Revision 4 - 06th February 2009 Doc link: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31083/sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev4.doc Line 1199: use xs:QName for consistency Fixed editorially Line 1217: Extra "must" Already fixed in final Rev4 Line 1227: "are" instead of "is" Fixed editorially Line 1312: Extra "must" Already fixed in final Rev4 Line 1365: stockQuoteService with a small s Fixed editorially Line 1400: "than" instead of "then" Fixed editorially Line 1417: Is "strict" needed? It seems fine to me. Line 1452: "e.g.," instead of "eg" (through out the doc ?) Fixed this line editorially Should the paragraph at line 1457 say what happens when some values are set to true and some are set to false? No. In general we make a statement that an SCA runtime must reject an invalid composite document - all that is needed is a statement here of what is required for the document to be valid, which is what the 1st normative statement does. Line 1485: 4.3.1 instead of 5.3.1 I removed the number editorially. There is a hyperlink there anyway and putting the number in is redundant. Line 1526: stockQuoteService with a small s Fixed editorially Line 1539: stockQuoteService with a small s Fixed editorially Line 1571: "@name attribute" instead of "name attribute" Fixed editorially Line 1578: Usage of article with attribute names. "an @type attribute" or "a @type attribute"? Tricky once you have that "@". Fixed editorially. Line 1739-40: "target attribute" or "@target attribute"? Fixed editorially Line 1754: what does "reference element of a service" mean? Removed editorially Line 1805: "return type" instead of "return value" This whole section needs a clean up - this requires an issue to be raised. Line 2062: The following *is* an ... Fixed editorially Line 2159: "the SCA Domain" instead of "the Domain". Fixed editorially Line 2319-2321 say: "The constrainingType specifies the services, references and properties that MUST be implemented by the implementation of the component to which the constrainingType is attached." "implemented" does not seem to be appropriate here. Suggest to use "provided" instead. Yes, that's an improvement. Changed editorially. Line 2325: "does" instead of "do". Fixed editorially Line 2388: stockQuoteService with a small s Fixed editorially Line 2476: says, "This can be done using the @AllowsPassByReference annotation." - Sounds as if this is the only way of doing it! The only way for a Java impl, but what about all the other impl types? Line 2667: database as one word. Fixed editorially. Line 2718: what is binding.composite?? It's a mistake - that's what it is!! Fixed editorially Line 2729: 4.3.1 instead of 5.3.1 Number removed editorially Line 2732: "@name attribute" instead of "name attribute" Fixed editorially Line 2733: "@name attribute" instead of "name attribute" Fixed editorially Line 2735: "@name attribute" instead of "name attribute" Fixed editorially Line 2737: extra "must" Already fixed in final Rev4 Line 2753: "service is available through any of the ..." instead of "service is available by any of the ..." Fixed editorially In the doc, some places it is "SCA domain" and other places it is "SCA Domain". Should it be consistent across the doc? Fixed editorially Line 2759-2760: The first sentence needs punctuation. Fixed editorially "If a reference has any bindings, they MUST be resolved. This means that each binding MUST include a value for the @URI attribute or MUST otherwise specify an endpoint." instead of "If a reference has any bindings they MUST be resolved which means that each binding MUST include a value for the @URI attribute or MUST otherwise specify an endpoint." Fixed editorially Line 2789 to 2792: should there be only two bullets instead of four? Yes. Fixed editorially Line 2809 to 2910: should there be only one bullet instead of two? Yes. Fixed editorially Line 2830-2831: "@uri attribute" instead of "uri attribute" Fixed editorially Line 2874: "honored" instead of "respected"? Sure, but "honoured". Cue furious debate about British vs American spelling ;-) Line 2879: "a URI" or "an URI"? Fixed editorially Line 2962-2964: "New interface types, implementation types and binding types that are defined using this extensibility model, which are not part of these SCA specifications MUST be defined in namespaces other than the SCA namespace." instead of "New interface types, implementation types and binding types that are defined using this extensibility model, which are not part of these SCA specifications are defined in namespaces other than the SCA namespace." This requires a new issue as it creates a new normative statement. Before line 3358, should there be a paragraph introducing the chapter? Good idea. Fixed editorially Line 3452: Remove "either" Fixed editorially Line 3492: "i.e.," instead of "ie" across the document. Fixed editorially Line 3528: Typo: artifact instead of srtifact Fixed editorially Line 3562: "the export" instead of "theexport" Fixed editorially Line 3572: "can be used" is repeated Fixed editorially Line 3590: "can be used" is repeated Fixed editorially Line 3625: "An up to date..." instead of "A up to date..." Fixed editorially Line 3740: "an installed contribution" instead of "a installed contribution" Fixed editorially Line 3809: Remove the period after "component". Fixed editorially Line 3811: "alternatively" instead of "alternative". Typo in component - "compoennt" Fixed editorially ++Vamsi Apache Tuscany Committer http://tuscany.apache.org Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC http://geronimo.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]