VF2F Day 2 raw chat log, and xml attachement

sca-j message

Subject: VF2F Day 2 raw chat log, and xml attachement

From: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>

To: "'OASIS Java'" <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>

Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 18:38:17 -0000

Mark Combellack: - Roll Call

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=sca-j

- Appointment of scribe. List attached below

- Agenda bashing

Issue Status:

Open: 29

1. Review action items:

Action Items that I believe are done:

2008-11-11-33: Simon to write up proposal for JAVA-67 (not in previous minutes but Simon is sure he has this action item)

2009-01-26-01: Yang to produce updated draft for Issue 27 with only relevant changes and answer questions about JSR 250 annotation rules.

2009-02-02-01: Mike to produce CD02 rev 01 incorporating changes for issues 25, 95 and 120

2009-02-02-04: Dave to raise new issue for long running request/response

2009-02-02-02: Simon to raise new issue on section 2.2 to consider making some of the scopes mandatory

Action Items that I believe are still to be done:

2008-07-15-2:  Plamen to produce a proposal for JAVA-2

2008-10-20-1:  Simon to write new proposal with textual changes for JAVA-76

2008-11-11-3:  Simon to provide proposal for JAVA-6

2008-11-11-7:  Mark to propose a delta to Simon's action (2008-11-11-6) on JAVA-25 to add support for message correlation on call backs

2008-11-11-12: Mark to write proposal for JAVA-46 drawing inspiration from the chat log of day 2 of the November F2F

2008-11-11-21: Mark, Jim and Mike to describe their use cases for JAVA-30

2008-11-11-22: Mark to draw up some wording for Direction 1 (as discussed at the November F2F) for JAVA-62

2008-11-11-23: Mark (and others prepared to help) to investigate the WorkManager JEE spec and determine its applicability to SCA for JAVA-62

2008-11-11-27: Simon to raise issue on brain-damaged definition of @Service annotation (see comments in Nov F2F raw chat log)

2009-01-09-01: Vamsi to produce proposal for JAVA-117

2009-02-02-03: Anish to write proposal for JAVA-119

2009-02-02-03: Mark to come back by Friday with example code showing interface/factory style code for JAVA-1

2. Blocking issues

a. JAVA-119: JAA Conformance Section

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-119

Updated proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00021.html

3. Critical Issue discussion

a. JAVA-60: Sharing Java artifacts across contributions

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-60

Updated proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00014.html

b. JAVA-6: @AllowsPassByReference requires more detailed description

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-30

Proposed direction: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00027.html

4. New Issues

a. JAVA-125: Allow call semantics to be specified ininterface.java/implementation.java

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-125

b. JAVA-127: Long running request/response operations

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-127

c. JAVA-128: Which scopes must implementations support?

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-128

5. Other Open Issues discussion

a. JAVA-30: "Process" Scope

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-30

proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200812/msg00006.html

b. JAVA-117: Clarify the name implied by setter method for property and reference names

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-117

Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00124.html

c. JAVA-65: There is no lifecycle defined for SCA Components

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-65

proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200811/msg00095.html

d. JAVA-102: Need to have a Name parameter on the @Service annotation

proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-102

e. JAVA-77: A remotable service SHOULD be translatable into a generally accepted standard for a service, such as WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-30

proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00029.html

f. JAVA-62: Clarify what a Component Implementation can do with threads

proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-62

6. Blocking issues waiting for updates/proposals

a. JAVA-104: RFC2119 Language is needed for CAA Specification

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-104

b. JAVA-105: RFC2119 Language is needed for C&I Specification

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-105

c. JAVA-27: Security Annotations in generated Component Type

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-27

Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00113.html

Discussions: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00126.html

7. Critical issues waiting for updates/proposals

a. JAVA-54: Section 7.1 of the Java CAA Specification is unclear

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-54

No proposal

b. JAVA-121: Compilable artifacts for Java annotations and APIs

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-121

More detailed proposal required

c. JAVA-1: Accessing SCA Services from non-SCA component code

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-1

Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00094.html

8. AOB

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

Rotating scribe list:

Peter Walker Sun Microsystems (1)

Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems (2)

Peter Peshev SAP AG (2)

Ron Barack SAP AG (3)

Michael Beisiegel IBM (3)

Sanjay Patil SAP AG (3)

Vladimir Savchenko SAP AG (1)

Jim Marino Individual (4)

Pradeep Simha TIBCO Software Inc. (5)

Martin Chapman Oracle Corporation (5)

Meeraj Kunnumpurath Individual (2)

Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation (7)

Vamsavardhana Chillakuru IBM (3)

Yang Lei (3)

Mike Edwards IBM (6)

Bryan Aupperle IBM (6)

Plamen Pavlov SAP AG (2)

Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation (6)

Simon Nash Individual (4)

Graham Charters: Agenda Bashing...

anonymous morphed into anish

Graham Charters: Adding Mike Edwards's editorial updates to the agenda - after "New Issues".

Graham Charters: Next Item - Review of Action Items.

Dave Booz: JAVA-67 was CNA'd Jan 26

Graham Charters: Action Item 2008-11-11-3 - Done.

Vamsi: AI 2009-01-09-01 is also complete.

Please change your name from 'anonymous' using the Settings button

Graham Charters: Next - Blocking Issues

Graham Charters: Java-119 AA conformance section

Graham Charters: Bryan made edits based on yesterday's discussion.  Did not make edits based on Anish's direction that the conformance statements belong in the C&I specs.

Graham Charters: Anish will provide an alternative proposal for Friday's call.

Graham Charters: Next - Critical Issue discussion

Graham Charters: JAVA-60

Mike Edwards: Latest proposal:  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00039.html

Mike Edwards: sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd02_issue60e.doc

Graham Charters: Section 11.  Changes since last rev, description of version number ranges, based on OSGi spec.

Graham Charters: Simon asked whether 2.0.0 is the same as 2.0 (as shown in the example).

Graham Charters: This needs clarification.

Graham Charters: Mark C asked about whether it shoulds be "==" and not the "equals" methods.  If it's meant to be the same object, then it should be "==".

anish: can one export a multiple versions of the same package?

Graham Charters: Suggestion to rework 11.3 to clarify "java classes in a contribution".

Graham Charters: Mike E - considered removing the "location" attribute - can lead to brittle dependencies like Require-Bundle in OSGi.

Graham Charters: Dave B - the use case for "location" is to resolve duplicates where someone messed up the versioning.  This is more of a problem for XML and may be less of a problem for Java.

anish: i'm wondering now why we need to specify this at all. If the runtime is OSGi, it would use the usual OSGi rules. No?

Graham Charters: Discussion about optional vs mandatory imports.  Conclusion was import.java is for mandatory imports and therefore step 4 in 11.2 should be removed.  If you want something equivalent to optional then the contribution should export as well as import.

Jim Marino: sorry..

Jim Marino: simon got it

Graham Charters: Jim M - design suggestion.  Each import to cover a single package, and split out package and version into separate attributes.

Graham Charters: Dave B/Simon N had use cases where multiple packages in the same attribute would be useful (functional groupings).

Mark Combellack: if have contribution A

<export.java package="com.acme.package1;version=1.4"/>

<export.java package="com.acme.package1.subpackage;version=1.4"/>

if have contribution B

<export.java package="com.acme.package1;version=1.5"/>

<export.java package="com.acme.package1.subpackage;version=1.5"/>

If I have contribution C

<import.java package="com.acme.package1;version=1.4"/>

<import.java package="com.acme.package1.subpackage;version=1.4"/>

How can I ensure that I don't get a mix of 1.4 and 1.5 versions?

Graham Charters: Anish K wondered how this would fit with using OSGi mechanism.  Mike E suggested that might be addressed with a Bundle Contribution concept (like the EAR contribution).  This led to discussion about whether this mechanism is mandatory or optional, and how the mechanism is chosen.

Simon Nash: my line just fropped

Simon Nash: droppoed

Mark Combellack: same - line quiet

Graham Charters: Mine too

Simon Nash: i will redial

Martin C: me too

Martin C: server error

Simon Nash: reboot...

Martin C: snow on the line?

Mike Edwards: reboot

Mark Combellack: I blame Martin's Cat again

Mike Edwards: was it doing something unmentionable ???

Pradeep: Regarding Mark's question - in OSGi this is resolved by the "uses" clause in the export.

Graham Charters: 11.2 bullet 1 is the point at which other resolution mechanism can be integrated.

Graham Charters: Mark's example above: OSGi has a "uses" concept that ensures consistent package resolution.

Graham Charters: Question posed: do we need to add the "uses" concept?

Dave Booz: 11.3 first sentence: The Java classes used by a contribution are all loaded .....

Vamsi: if have contribution A1

<export.java package="com.acme.package1;version=1.5"/>

<export.java package="com.acme.package1.subpackage;version=1.5"/>

if have contribution A2

<export.java package="com.acme.package1;version=1.5"/>

<export.java package="com.acme.package1.subpackage;version=1.5"/>

Graham Charters: Dave B proposed rewording above for first sentence of 11.3 satisfies Simon N's concerns.

Graham Charters: Paragraph 3 in 11.3 - First parts is redundant and misleading, but the ThreadContext classloader is important.

Simon Nash: For a component implementation class, the classloader of its containing contribution is set as the ThreadContext classloader

Graham Charters: Mike E to come back with an update on Friday.

Simon Nash: or even... The ThreadContext classloader of a component implementation class is set to the classloader of its containing contribution

Vamsi: Thread Context -- two words or one word?

Graham Charters: Break - 15 mins.

Simon Nash: good point... maybe it's two words

Simon Nash: Google thinks it's two words

Simon Nash: The thread context classloader of a component implementation class is set to the classloader of its containing contribution

Mike Edwards: thx Simon

Mark Combellack: By my clock it is now 17:20 so we should be restarting soon

Jim Marino: me

Graham Charters: Graham is relieved to be relieved as scribe...

Martin C: Scribe: Martin

Martin C: Topic: New Issues (again)

Martin C: JAVA-125: Allow call semantics to be specified ininterface.java/implementation.java

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-125

Martin C: simon comments that covers two specs so may be should be two issues

Martin C asks if we have 2/3 voting members on the call</B< pre>

Martin C: Mark comments that it is similar to a previous discussion

Mark Combellack: Yes we do have 2/3

Martin C: java-6 covers some aspects of pass by value

anish: if we do what the proposal says, we'll need a @Local annotation

Martin C: Mike E: moves to open 125 against Java CAA spec only for remotable access

Martin C: s/access/annotation/

Martin C: 2nd Dave B

Martin C: text in jira should be updated to reflect the focus on Java CAA

Martin C: Passed w/o

Martin C: JAVA-127: Long running request/response operations

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-127

Martin C prefers doing expense reports</B< pre>

anish: from enterprise usecases perspective, long running req-res are quite important and common

Martin C: Dave B Moves to open 127

Martin C: Mike E 2nds

Martin C: Passed w/o

Martin C: JAVA-128: Which scopes must implementations support?

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-128

Martin C: Simon decides its not an issue

Martin C: Simon motions to close no action, 2nd Vamsi

Martin C: Passed w/o

Martin C: Topic: Issues discussion

Dave Booz: I think we should do Mike's editorial update to clear the way for issue 27

Mike Edwards: Review:

Mike Edwards: sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge2.doc

Mike Edwards: from this email

Martin C: email not received so back to normal agenda

Martin C: JAVA-6: @AllowsPassByReference requires more detailed description

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-6

Martin C: Simon goes over client side requirements

Mark Combellack: Proposed direction at: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00027.html

Mike Edwards: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00040.html

Mike Edwards: so the revision update has now made it to the list, at least....

Mark Combellack: Mike. FYI: I've now received the email OK from the list

Martin C: somin to think about addressing concerns on client side requirements

Martin C: s/somin/Simon/

Martin C: Mike would like a rewording of point 2

Mark Combellack: Time warning: Just under 10 minutes left

Martin C yipee</B< pre>

Mike Edwards: So where there is no injection...

Mike Edwards: @Reference(name="stockQuote", required=false)

protected StockQuoteService stockQuote;

Martin C: Simon is absorbing comments

Mike Edwards: ...and then you would add @AllowsPassByValue to that

Mike Edwards: and then the @AllowsPassByReference is introspectable for the Reference and is known to the code that is used to obtain a proxy through an API like xxx.getService

Martin C: aob for today: no straglers

Mike Edwards: more snow anyone ????

Martin C: meeting recessed until friday

Martin Chapman | Standards Professional
Mobile: +353 87 687 6654

ORACLE Ireland
"Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail"

- <room name="sca-j-tc" time="1233587989300" dateTime="2009-02-02T10:19:49.300-05:00"> <comment time="1233673941113" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:12:21.113-05:00" type="c1" who="Mark Combellack">- Roll Call http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=sca-j - Appointment of scribe. List attached below - Agenda bashing Issue Status: Open: 29 1. Review action items: Action Items that I believe are done: 2008-11-11-33: Simon to write up proposal for JAVA-67 (not in previous minutes but Simon is sure he has this action item) 2009-01-26-01: Yang to produce updated draft for Issue 27 with only relevant changes and answer questions about JSR 250 annotation rules. 2009-02-02-01: Mike to produce CD02 rev 01 incorporating changes for issues 25, 95 and 120 2009-02-02-04: Dave to raise new issue for long running request/response 2009-02-02-02: Simon to raise new issue on section 2.2 to consider making some of the scopes mandatory Action Items that I believe are still to be done: 2008-07-15-2: Plamen to produce a proposal for JAVA-2 2008-10-20-1: Simon to write new proposal with textual changes for JAVA-76 2008-11-11-3: Simon to provide proposal for JAVA-6 2008-11-11-7: Mark to propose a delta to Simon's action (2008-11-11-6) on JAVA-25 to add support for message correlation on call backs 2008-11-11-12: Mark to write proposal for JAVA-46 drawing inspiration from the chat log of day 2 of the November F2F 2008-11-11-21: Mark, Jim and Mike to describe their use cases for JAVA-30 2008-11-11-22: Mark to draw up some wording for Direction 1 (as discussed at the November F2F) for JAVA-62 2008-11-11-23: Mark (and others prepared to help) to investigate the WorkManager JEE spec and determine its applicability to SCA for JAVA-62 2008-11-11-27: Simon to raise issue on brain-damaged definition of @Service annotation (see comments in Nov F2F raw chat log) 2009-01-09-01: Vamsi to produce proposal for JAVA-117 2009-02-02-03: Anish to write proposal for JAVA-119 2009-02-02-03: Mark to come back by Friday with example code showing interface/factory style code for JAVA-1 2. Blocking issues a. JAVA-119: JAA Conformance Section http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-119 Updated proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00021.html 3. Critical Issue discussion a. JAVA-60: Sharing Java artifacts across contributions http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-60 Updated proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00014.html b. JAVA-6: @AllowsPassByReference requires more detailed description http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-30 Proposed direction: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00027.html 4. New Issues a. JAVA-125: Allow call semantics to be specified ininterface.java/implementation.java http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-125 b. JAVA-127: Long running request/response operations http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-127 c. JAVA-128: Which scopes must implementations support? http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-128 5. Other Open Issues discussion a. JAVA-30: "Process" Scope http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-30 proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200812/msg00006.html b. JAVA-117: Clarify the name implied by setter method for property and reference names http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-117 Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00124.html c. JAVA-65: There is no lifecycle defined for SCA Components http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-65 proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200811/msg00095.html d. JAVA-102: Need to have a Name parameter on the @Service annotation proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-102 e. JAVA-77: A remotable service SHOULD be translatable into a generally accepted standard for a service, such as WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0 http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-30 proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00029.html f. JAVA-62: Clarify what a Component Implementation can do with threads proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-62 6. Blocking issues waiting for updates/proposals a. JAVA-104: RFC2119 Language is needed for CAA Specification http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-104 b. JAVA-105: RFC2119 Language is needed for C&I Specification http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-105 c. JAVA-27: Security Annotations in generated Component Type http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-27 Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00113.html Discussions: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00126.html 7. Critical issues waiting for updates/proposals a. JAVA-54: Section 7.1 of the Java CAA Specification is unclear http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-54 No proposal b. JAVA-121: Compilable artifacts for Java annotations and APIs http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-121 More detailed proposal required c. JAVA-1: Accessing SCA Services from non-SCA component code http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-1 Proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200901/msg00094.html 8. AOB --------------------------------------------------------------- Rotating scribe list: Peter Walker Sun Microsystems (1) Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems (2) Peter Peshev SAP AG (2) Ron Barack SAP AG (3) Michael Beisiegel IBM (3) Sanjay Patil SAP AG (3) Vladimir Savchenko SAP AG (1) Jim Marino Individual (4) Pradeep Simha TIBCO Software Inc. (5) Martin Chapman Oracle Corporation (5) Meeraj Kunnumpurath Individual (2) Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation (7) Vamsavardhana Chillakuru IBM (3) Yang Lei (3) Mike Edwards IBM (6) Bryan Aupperle IBM (6) Plamen Pavlov SAP AG (2) Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation (6) Simon Nash Individual (4)</comment> <comment time="1233675402555" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:36:42.555-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Agenda Bashing...</comment> <comment time="1233675486796" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:38:06.796-05:00" type="a3" who="">anonymous morphed into anish</comment> <comment time="1233675487206" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:38:07.206-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Adding Mike Edwards's editorial updates to the agenda - after "New Issues".</comment> <comment time="1233675531320" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:38:51.320-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Next Item - Review of Action Items.</comment> <comment time="1233675607119" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:40:07.119-05:00" type="c1" who="Dave Booz">JAVA-67 was CNA'd Jan 26</comment> <comment time="1233675680224" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:41:20.224-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Action Item 2008-11-11-3 - Done.</comment> <comment time="1233675700093" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:41:40.093-05:00" type="c1" who="Vamsi">AI 2009-01-09-01 is also complete.</comment> <comment time="1233675755582" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:42:35.582-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Next - Blocking Issues</comment> <comment time="1233675756053" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:42:36.053-05:00" type="a3" who="">anonymous morphed into Martin C</comment> <comment time="1233675766368" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:42:46.368-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Java-119 AA conformance section</comment> <comment time="1233675918697" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:45:18.697-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Bryan made edits based on yesterday's discussion. Did not make edits based on Anish's direction that the conformance statements belong in the C&I specs.</comment> <comment time="1233675980255" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:46:20.255-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Anish will provide an alternative proposal for Friday's call.</comment> <comment time="1233676007735" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:46:47.735-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Next - Critical Issue discussion</comment> <comment time="1233676015346" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:46:55.346-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">JAVA-60</comment> <comment time="1233676076924" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:47:56.924-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Latest proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00039.html</comment> <comment time="1233676101209" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:48:21.209-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd02_issue60e.doc</comment> <comment time="1233676272375" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:51:12.375-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Section 11. Changes since last rev, description of version number ranges, based on OSGi spec.</comment> <comment time="1233676417805" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:53:37.805-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Simon asked whether 2.0.0 is the same as 2.0 (as shown in the example).</comment> <comment time="1233676423823" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:53:43.823-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">This needs clarification.</comment> <comment time="1233676513052" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:55:13.052-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Mark Combellack</comment> <comment time="1233676588380" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:56:28.380-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233676645312" dateTime="2009-02-03T10:57:25.312-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Mark C asked about whether it shoulds be "==" and not the "equals" methods. If it's meant to be the same object, then it should be "==".</comment> <comment time="1233677010857" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:03:30.857-05:00" type="c1" who="anish">can one export a multiple versions of the same package?</comment> <comment time="1233677034061" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:03:54.061-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Suggestion to rework 11.3 to clarify "java classes in a contribution".</comment> <comment time="1233677600585" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:13:20.585-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Mike E - considered removing the "location" attribute - can lead to brittle dependencies like Require-Bundle in OSGi.</comment> <comment time="1233677718956" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:15:18.956-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Dave B - the use case for "location" is to resolve duplicates where someone messed up the versioning. This is more of a problem for XML and may be less of a problem for Java.</comment> <comment time="1233678454303" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:27:34.303-05:00" type="c1" who="anish">i'm wondering now why we need to specify this at all. If the runtime is OSGi, it would use the usual OSGi rules. No?</comment> <comment time="1233678466340" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:27:46.340-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Discussion about optional vs mandatory imports. Conclusion was import.java is for mandatory imports and therefore step 4 in 11.2 should be removed. If you want something equivalent to optional then the contribution should export as well as import.</comment> <comment time="1233678604599" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:30:04.599-05:00" type="c1" who="Jim Marino">sorry..</comment> <comment time="1233678611489" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:30:11.489-05:00" type="a3" who="">anonymous morphed into anish</comment> <comment time="1233678615525" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:30:15.525-05:00" type="c1" who="Jim Marino">simon got it</comment> <comment time="1233678676352" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:31:16.352-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Jim M - design suggestion. Each import to cover a single package, and split out package and version into separate attributes.</comment> <comment time="1233678715338" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:31:55.338-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: anish</comment> <comment time="1233678721808" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:32:01.808-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233678768585" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:32:48.585-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: anish</comment> <comment time="1233678779240" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:32:59.240-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233678853187" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:34:13.187-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Dave B/Simon N had use cases where multiple packages in the same attribute would be useful (functional groupings).</comment> <comment time="1233678913974" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:35:13.974-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Simon Nash</comment> <comment time="1233679011865" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:36:51.865-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Simon Nash, Mark Combellack</comment> <comment time="1233679017503" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:36:57.503-05:00" type="c1" who="Mark Combellack">if have contribution A <export.java package="com.acme.package1;version=1.4"/> <export.java package="com.acme.package1.subpackage;version=1.4"/> if have contribution B <export.java package="com.acme.package1;version=1.5"/> <export.java package="com.acme.package1.subpackage;version=1.5"/> If I have contribution C <import.java package="com.acme.package1;version=1.4"/> <import.java package="com.acme.package1.subpackage;version=1.4"/> How can I ensure that I don't get a mix of 1.4 and 1.5 versions?</comment> <comment time="1233679030171" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:37:10.171-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Anish K wondered how this would fit with using OSGi mechanism. Mike E suggested that might be addressed with a Bundle Contribution concept (like the EAR contribution). This led to discussion about whether this mechanism is mandatory or optional, and how the mechanism is chosen.</comment> <comment time="1233679085541" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:38:05.541-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">my line just fropped</comment> <comment time="1233679088104" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:38:08.104-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">droppoed</comment> <comment time="1233679092951" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:38:12.951-05:00" type="c1" who="Mark Combellack">same - line quiet</comment> <comment time="1233679093102" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:38:13.102-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Mine too</comment> <comment time="1233679093572" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:38:13.572-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">i will redial</comment> <comment time="1233679094954" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:38:14.954-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">me too</comment> <comment time="1233679101584" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:38:21.584-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">server error</comment> <comment time="1233679110006" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:38:30.006-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">reboot...</comment> <comment time="1233679115894" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:38:35.894-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">snow on the line?</comment> <comment time="1233679127291" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:38:47.291-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">reboot</comment> <comment time="1233679129193" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:38:49.193-05:00" type="c1" who="Mark Combellack">I blame Martin's Cat again :-)</comment> <comment time="1233679144626" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:39:04.626-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">was it doing something unmentionable ??? ;-)</comment> <comment time="1233679421714" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:43:41.714-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Mark Combellack</comment> <comment time="1233679441412" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:44:01.412-05:00" type="c1" who="Pradeep">Regarding Mark's question - in OSGi this is resolved by the "uses" clause in the export.</comment> <comment time="1233679458567" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:44:18.567-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">11.2 bullet 1 is the point at which other resolution mechanism can be integrated.</comment> <comment time="1233679482722" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:44:42.722-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233679694787" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:48:14.787-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Mark's example above: OSGi has a "uses" concept that ensures consistent package resolution.</comment> <comment time="1233679978034" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:52:58.034-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Question posed: do we need to add the "uses" concept?</comment> <comment time="1233680039452" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:53:59.452-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Vamsi</comment> <comment time="1233680046783" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:54:06.783-05:00" type="c1" who="Dave Booz">11.3 first sentence: The Java classes used by a contribution are all loaded .....</comment> <comment time="1233680049797" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:54:09.797-05:00" type="c1" who="Vamsi">if have contribution A1 <export.java package="com.acme.package1;version=1.5"/> <export.java package="com.acme.package1.subpackage;version=1.5"/> if have contribution A2 <export.java package="com.acme.package1;version=1.5"/> <export.java package="com.acme.package1.subpackage;version=1.5"/></comment> <comment time="1233680063016" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:54:23.016-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233680253520" dateTime="2009-02-03T11:57:33.520-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Dave B proposed rewording above for first sentence of 11.3 satisfies Simon N's concerns.</comment> <comment time="1233680565419" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:02:45.419-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Paragraph 3 in 11.3 - First parts is redundant and misleading, but the ThreadContext classloader is important.</comment> <comment time="1233680581982" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:03:01.982-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">For a component implementation class, the classloader of its containing contribution is set as the ThreadContext classloader</comment> <comment time="1233680700333" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:05:00.333-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Mike E to come back with an update on Friday.</comment> <comment time="1233680713982" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:05:13.982-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">or even... The ThreadContext classloader of a component implementation class is set to the classloader of its containing contribution</comment> <comment time="1233680737987" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:05:37.987-05:00" type="c1" who="Vamsi">Thread Context -- two words or one word?</comment> <comment time="1233680746429" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:05:46.429-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Break - 15 mins.</comment> <comment time="1233680754240" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:05:54.240-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">good point... maybe it's two words</comment> <comment time="1233680804853" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:06:44.853-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">Google thinks it's two words</comment> <comment time="1233680819674" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:06:59.674-05:00" type="c1" who="Simon Nash">The thread context classloader of a component implementation class is set to the classloader of its containing contribution</comment> <comment time="1233680996569" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:09:56.569-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">thx Simon</comment> <comment time="1233681526841" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:18:46.841-05:00" type="c1" who="Mark Combellack">By my clock it is now 17:20 so we should be restarting soon</comment> <comment time="1233681627736" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:20:27.736-05:00" type="c1" who="Jim Marino">me</comment> <comment time="1233681738245" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:22:18.245-05:00" type="c1" who="Graham Charters">Graham is relieved to be relieved as scribe...</comment> <comment time="1233681805492" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:23:25.492-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Scribe: Martin</comment> <comment time="1233681823528" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:23:43.528-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Topic: New Issues (again)</comment> <comment time="1233681856054" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:24:16.054-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">JAVA-125: Allow call semantics to be specified ininterface.java/implementation.java http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-125</comment> <comment time="1233681985150" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:26:25.150-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Mark Combellack</comment> <comment time="1233682002785" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:26:42.785-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233682014432" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:26:54.432-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">simon comments that covers two specs so may be should be two issues</comment> <comment time="1233682053298" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:27:33.298-05:00" type="c2" who="Martin C">asks if we have 2/3 voting members on the call</comment> <comment time="1233682115087" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:28:35.087-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Mark comments that it is similar to a previous discussion</comment> <comment time="1233682151189" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:29:11.189-05:00" type="c1" who="Mark Combellack">Yes we do have 2/3</comment> <comment time="1233682192258" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:29:52.258-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">java-6 covers some aspects of pass by value</comment> <comment time="1233682330887" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:32:10.887-05:00" type="c1" who="anish">if we do what the proposal says, we'll need a @Local annotation</comment> <comment time="1233682674121" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:37:54.121-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Mike E: moves to open 125 against Java CAA spec only for remotable access</comment> <comment time="1233682702221" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:38:22.221-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">s/access/annotation/</comment> <comment time="1233682747566" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:39:07.566-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">2nd Dave B</comment> <comment time="1233682794324" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:39:54.324-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">text in jira should be updated to reflect the focus on Java CAA</comment> <comment time="1233682807523" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:40:07.523-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Passed w/o</comment> <comment time="1233682828983" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:40:28.983-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">JAVA-127: Long running request/response operations http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-127</comment> <comment time="1233682849122" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:40:49.122-05:00" type="c2" who="Martin C">prefers doing expense reports</comment> <comment time="1233682945391" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:42:25.391-05:00" type="c1" who="anish">from enterprise usecases perspective, long running req-res are quite important and common</comment> <comment time="1233682956957" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:42:36.957-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Dave B Moves to open 127</comment> <comment time="1233682961444" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:42:41.444-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Mike E 2nds</comment> <comment time="1233682978839" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:42:58.839-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Passed w/o</comment> <comment time="1233683012337" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:43:32.337-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">JAVA-128: Which scopes must implementations support? http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-128</comment> <comment time="1233683072554" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:44:32.554-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: anish</comment> <comment time="1233683088527" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:44:48.527-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233683422006" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:50:22.006-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Simon decides its not an issue</comment> <comment time="1233683439171" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:50:39.171-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Simon motions to close no action, 2nd Vamsi</comment> <comment time="1233683450727" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:50:50.727-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Passed w/o</comment> <comment time="1233683477716" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:51:17.716-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Topic: Issues discussion</comment> <comment time="1233683579973" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:52:59.973-05:00" type="c1" who="Dave Booz">I think we should do Mike's editorial update to clear the way for issue 27</comment> <comment time="1233683668851" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:54:28.851-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">Review:</comment> <comment time="1233683670634" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:54:30.634-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge2.doc</comment> <comment time="1233683680207" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:54:40.207-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">from this email</comment> <comment time="1233683756657" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:55:56.657-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">email not received so back to normal agenda</comment> <comment time="1233683768054" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:56:08.054-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">JAVA-6: @AllowsPassByReference requires more detailed description http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-6</comment> <comment time="1233683841029" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:57:21.029-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Simon goes over client side requirements</comment> <comment time="1233683852836" dateTime="2009-02-03T12:57:32.836-05:00" type="c1" who="Mark Combellack">Proposed direction at: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00027.html</comment> <comment time="1233684129483" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:02:09.483-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Jim Marino</comment> <comment time="1233684175149" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:02:55.149-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233684239842" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:03:59.842-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Bryan Aupperle</comment> <comment time="1233684379413" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:06:19.413-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233684464535" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:07:44.535-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200902/msg00040.html</comment> <comment time="1233684485035" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:08:05.035-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">so the revision update has now made it to the list, at least....</comment> <comment time="1233684519755" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:08:39.755-05:00" type="c1" who="Mark Combellack">Mike. FYI: I've now received the email OK from the list</comment> <comment time="1233684641820" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:10:41.820-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">somin to think about addressing concerns on client side requirements</comment> <comment time="1233684650152" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:10:50.152-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">s/somin/Simon/</comment> <comment time="1233685008337" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:16:48.337-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Mike would like a rewording of point 2</comment> <comment time="1233685280989" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:21:20.989-05:00" type="c1" who="Mark Combellack">Time warning: Just under 10 minutes left</comment> <comment time="1233685301719" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:21:41.719-05:00" type="c2" who="Martin C">yipee</comment> <comment time="1233685423094" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:23:43.094-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Dave Booz</comment> <comment time="1233685509017" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:25:09.017-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233685520604" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:25:20.604-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">So where there is no injection...</comment> <comment time="1233685556095" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:25:56.095-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">@Reference(name="stockQuote", required=false) protected StockQuoteService stockQuote;</comment> <comment time="1233685557958" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:25:57.958-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: Mark Combellack</comment> <comment time="1233685573840" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:26:13.840-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">Simon is absorbing comments</comment> <comment time="1233685589513" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:26:29.513-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">...and then you would add @AllowsPassByValue to that</comment> <comment time="1233685655968" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:27:35.968-05:00" type="a8" who="">Q: -empty-</comment> <comment time="1233685660074" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:27:40.074-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">and then the @AllowsPassByReference is introspectable for the Reference and is known to the code that is used to obtain a proxy through an API like xxx.getService</comment> <comment time="1233685751125" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:29:11.125-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">aob for today: no straglers</comment> <comment time="1233685835406" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:30:35.406-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">more snow anyone ????</comment> <comment time="1233685841015" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:30:41.015-05:00" type="c1" who="Martin C">meeting recessed until friday</comment> <comment time="1233685863427" dateTime="2009-02-03T13:31:03.427-05:00" type="c1" who="Mike Edwards">free shovel for good attendance ;-)</comment> </room>