Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Need definition of compatible for propertytypes

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Anish,

I've always held the view that it is
simple and straightforward to have the requirements spelled
out "inline" on the component
declaration rather than having to refer to some separate structure
such as constrainingType.

But as far as this issue is concerned,
it makes no real difference.  Whether the component spells
out the property type directly or via
a reference to some constrainingType, the question of the 
compatibility of property types between
that type definition and the type definition of the property
in the implementation remains.  That
is the heart of this issue, I believe.


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:	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
To:	Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:	sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	14/04/2009 07:02
Subject:	Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Need definition of compatible for property types

---

Mike Edwards wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Comment inline...
> 
> 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:                
 Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
> To:                
 sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
> Date:                
 07/04/2009 06:28
> Subject:              
   Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Need definition of compatible
> for property types
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> +1 to raising this issue.
> 
> The correct line number for [1] is 1045.
> 
> Do we really need this feature? Why allow @type or @element on component
> properties?
> 
> *<mje>*
> *I am somewhat surprised by Anish making this comment!*
> *One of the usecases of specifying the type of a property on a component
> is to ensure*
> *that whichever implementation is used for that component conforms
to 
> the needs of*
> *the component, when building using a top-down approach.  If
the type 
> cannot be*
> *specified, then the composite is forced to accept whatever type the
> implementation*
> *decides to provide and no error would get raised in the case of a
> mismatch.*
> *</mje>*
> 

I'm not sure that I understand.
For top-down usecase, I would use the constrainingType.

-Anish
--


> 
> The implementation declares the type of the property, it is
> tricky to allow subtypes and hope that it would get mapped correctly
and
> would be allowed by the implementation/implementation language
> (especially when we want to allow multiple C&I types). Do we lose
> anything by removing this?
> 
> *<mje>*
> *+1 to disallowing subtypes...*
> *</mje>*
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> David Booz wrote:
>  > TARGET: Assembly spec CD03 [1]
>  >
>  > DESCRIPTION:
>  > Line 1036 of CD03 [1] says that if a component specifies
a property
>  > type, then that type must be compatible with the type of
the same
>  > property in the componentType. What does compatible mean?
It might be as
>  > simple as the same type of sub-type (i.e though some form
of
>  > inheritance), but it needs to be specified.
>  >
>  > PROPOSAL:
>  > None
>  >
>  > [1]
>  > 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31740/sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03.pdf
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 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:booz@us.ibm.com
>  >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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