sca-c-cpp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Fw: [sca-c-cpp-comment] comments from Jacques D.
- From: Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>
- To: sca-c-cpp@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:46:42 -0400
More from Jacques Durand. (Andy
his first two additional comments below need to be raised in Jira. The
last is an offshoot of the PDF conversion problem he already noted).
Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
----- Forwarded by Bryan
Aupperle/Raleigh/IBM on 06/24/2009 12:44 PM -----
"Jacques R. Durand"
<JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
06/23/2009 05:30 PM
|
To
| Bryan Aupperle/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
| <sca-c-cpp-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| RE: [sca-c-cpp-comment] comments from
Jacques D. |
|
Bryan:
I guess I am a little confused
about how the distinction between Composite and Component plays in the
C++ implementation model:.
Do you consider "composite"
as just an implementation concept only? (i.e. no dedicated class).
I see composite mentioned as a
COmponent implementation "scope", so it seems it
does not have a construct or class on its own.
If that is the case that should
be more clearly stated, as in the Assembly mark-up
it appears that a component
is always used inside a Composite - and not by itself.
So that would also address my
question about the "promotion" concept in Assembly that relates
the Services of a composite to the Service of a component inside.
Other comments:
- it is unclear what the notion
of "SCA runtime" corresponds to in C++. Is there a particular
framework or container (in C++) to manage components? For example, what
entity is raising SCA Exceptions ? (as opposed to business exceptions).
- The ServiceProxy base class
is empty... is it really needed?
- it looks like (in PDF) the table
of contents is not uptodate: section 6.5 is announced as SCAExceptions,
but it is actually 6.6.
Regards,
Jacques
From: Bryan Aupperle [mailto:aupperle@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:44 AM
To: Jacques R. Durand
Cc: sca-c-cpp-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [sca-c-cpp-comment] comments from Jacques D.
Thank-you for comment on the formatting. Definitely a PDF generation
problem.
Before the TC can fully consider your comment on promotion, would you be
able to elaborate on what you think may be needed? The promotion
of services and reverences as defined in the Assembly specification is
completely invisible to a component implementation and thus would not be
reflected in an API or component/componentType definition.
Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
Chair OASIS SCA-C-CPP TC
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
"Jacques R. Durand"
<JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
06/23/2009 01:55 PM
|
To
| <sca-c-cpp-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [sca-c-cpp-comment] comments from Jacques
D. |
|
The spec appears to cover a lot of ground for C/C++ developers.
My only comments so far:
- in the PDF, title of section 6.4 seems to not be right (formatting
issue?)
- the "promotion" mechanism described in Assembly specification,
does not seem to be addressed here.
Jacques Durand
Fujitsu
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]