RE: [sca-j] [ISSUE 65] There is no lifecycle defined for SCA Components - Updated proposal revision 4

["Mark Combellack" <mcombellack@avaya.com>]

Hi Vamsi,

Thanks for pointing this inconsistency out. I'd spotted it too and made it consistent in the version 6 of the proposal.

Thanks,

Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C Vamsi [mailto:vamsic007@in.ibm.com]
> Sent: 17 March 2009 11:03
> To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [sca-j] [ISSUE 65] There is no lifecycle defined for SCA
> Components - Updated proposal revision 4
> 
> Mike,
> 
> I see in the text that in some places the state is referred to as that of
> "component implementation" (for e.g. in section 4.2.4 lines273-275, The
> SCA
> Runtime MUST invoke Service methods on a component implementation instance
> when the component implementation is in the Running state when a client
> invokes operations on a service offered by the component.) where as in
> some
> places the state is referred to as that of "implementation instance" (for
> e.g. in section 4.2.5 lines 287-288, The SCA Runtime MUST NOT invoke
> Service methods on the component implementation when the implementation
> instance is in the Destroying state.)  It should be consistent across the
> section.
> 
> ++Vamsi
> 
> 
> 
>              Mike Edwards
>              <mike_edwards@uk.
>              ibm.com>                                                   To
>                                        sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
>              17/03/2009 15:41                                           cc
> 
>                                                                    Subject
>                                        RE: [sca-j] [ISSUE 65] There is no
>                                        lifecycle defined for SCA
>                                        Components - Updated proposal
>                                        revision 4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> Comments and suggested changes done inline in the attached updated
> document.  Mostly editorial except for
> one significant change in the Running state, which I'd appreciate everyone
> to look at:
> 
> 
> 
> 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:    "Mark Combellack" <mcombellack@avaya.com>
> 
>  To:      <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
>  Date:    16/03/2009 22:16
> 
>  Subject: RE: [sca-j] [ISSUE 65] There is no lifecycle defined for SCA
>           Components - Updated proposal revision 4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Based on the comments in the conference call, I have produced version 4 of
> the specification.
> 
> To simplify identifying the changes, I have highlighted them in yellow.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark
> Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | Eastern Business Park | St.
> Mellons | Cardiff | CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 |
> mcombellack@avaya.com
> 
> 
> 
> From: Mark Combellack [mailto:mcombellack@avaya.com]
> Sent: 15 March 2009 21:28
> To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [sca-j] [ISSUE 65] There is no lifecycle defined for SCA
> Components - Updated proposal revision 3
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Following on from Simons comments in [1], I have updated the proposal by
> using Simon's proposed wording changes. This new version is attached as
> version 3.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark
> 
> [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200903/msg00061.html
> Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | Eastern Business Park | St.
> Mellons | Cardiff | CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 |
> mcombellack@avaya.com
> 
> 
> 
> From: Mark Combellack [mailto:mcombellack@avaya.com]
> Sent: 12 March 2009 13:51
> To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [sca-j] [ISSUE 65] There is no lifecycle defined for SCA
> Components - Updated proposal revision 2
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As discussed in our conference calls, I have updated the proposal for
> JAVA-65 to remove the PostInit and PreDestroy phases to simplify the
> model.
> The attached document contains the revised proposal
> 
> All changes for Issue 65 are contained in a new chapter 4.
> 
> The changes between this new revision 2 and the original proposal are:
> 
> 
>    Removed the @PostInit annotation and associated state in the lifecycle
>    model
>    Removed the @PreDestroy annotation and associated state in the
> lifecycle
>    model
> 
> 
> This update completes my action 2009-02-19-02.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark
> Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | Eastern Business Park | St.
> Mellons | Cardiff | CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 |
> mcombellack@avaya.com
>  [attachment "sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev2_plus_Issue 65-rev4.doc"
> deleted by Mike Edwards/UK/IBM]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (See attached file: sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev2_plus_Issue
> 65-rev4_mje.doc)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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