sca-j message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: ISSUE 14: Conversation Attributes are not in Java Schema
- From: "Barack, Ron" <ron.barack@sap.com>
- To: <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:36:06 +0200
Title: Conversation Attributes are not in Java
Schema
Target:
Java Schema in Assembly Model Specification
Description: The conversation attributes defined by
@Conversation Attributes in the initial
working draft of the Java Common Annotations and APIs Specification do not exist in the initial working draft of the Assembly Model
Specification. While this may
not be a problem it is an inconsistency in so far as the other annotations all
impact SCDL. It should also be noted that Java typically sets the pattern
for other language bindings.
Proposal: No specific proposal at this time.
Bryan Aupperle,
Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution
Architect
Master Inventor
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 10/17/2007 03:16 PM -----
"Michael Rowley"
<mrowley@bea.com>
10/17/2007 02:35 PM
|
To
| Bryan Aupperle/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
<sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [sca-j]
@ConversationAttributes |
|
I
believe this should be raised as an issue for SCA-J. There is some chance
that conversation attributes should map to policy sets rather than to new
assembly model constructs, so I would hold off on raising this as an issue to
another TC until we have an idea of who should get it.
Michael
From: Bryan Aupperle
[mailto:aupperle@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 10:03
AM
To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sca-j]
@ConversationAttributes
I was looking at the
annotations related to conversations in the initial working draft of the Java
Common Annotations and APIs Specification and the Java schemas in the initial
working draft of the Assembly Model Specification and noticed that there is
nothing in the schema corresponding to the conversation attributes defined by
the @ConversationAttributes. Am I misreading something, is this
intentional, or is there something missing from the schema?
I was
prompted to look at this by reviewing the conversation related annotations for
C++ and C and noticing some differences. My concern is primarily that we
do things with appropriate consistency across the various languages.
Bryan
Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution
Architect
Master Inventor
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1
919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address:
aupperle@us.ibm.com
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]