Private or local channels

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

During last week's call Peter and I had a little bit of back on forth in 
the chat regarding private/local channels. I would like to start a 
discussion on it on the ML before I file an issue (or not, depending on 
the outcome of the discussion).

Peter has pointed out that line 2815 of our spec says:

"Channels within a composite used as an implementation are private to 
the components within that composite. These private channels can only be 
the targets for producers existing within the same composite as the 
channel. Private channels can only be sources for consumers existing 
withing the same composite as the channel. An SCA runtime MAY support 
the use of private channels "

Peter's interpretation of this is that composite channels are not 
visible to components outside the composite *and* to anyone outside of 
the SCA-world. I have a different interpretation of this. I don't think 
our spec should talk about what things outside of SCA do or don't do. We 
should allow for enough freedom wrt the technology use to implement the 
channels. It could be an in-memory channel that is true invisible to 
anyone outside the process or a JMS topic, which would have visibility 
outside of SCA. We currently allow bindings on a composite channel; that 
to me indicates that we intended to allow such variability. If folks 
agree with my interpretation, I think we should change the wordings to 
replace 'private' with 'local', so as not the give an incorrect impression.

Comments?

-Anish
--