[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-j] [NEW ISSUE] Section 10.13 on @OneWay requires a normativestatement
The problem with this interpretation is that @OneWay would need to appear on the reference side, and a reference must use a Java interface and not a Java class. Simon David Booz wrote: > +1 > > Dave Booz > STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture > Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC > "Distributed objects first, then world hunger" > Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093 > e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com > > Inactive hide details for Mike Edwards ---04/28/2009 08:59:22 > AM---Simon, I don't think it was the intention of the original woMike > Edwards ---04/28/2009 08:59:22 AM---Simon, I don't think it was the > intention of the original wording of the spec to > > > From: > Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com> > > To: > OASIS Java <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Date: > 04/28/2009 08:59 AM > > Subject: > Re: [sca-j] [NEW ISSUE] Section 10.13 on @OneWay requires a normative > statement > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Simon, > > I don't think it was the intention of the original wording of the spec > to permit the implementation > pattern that you describe below. > > I think that the case of class methods being annotated was there to > cover the case where the > whole class defines the interface - as occurs for unannotated classes > with purely local interfaces. > > Maybe I have this wrong, but that is how I understand it. > > > 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: Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> > To: OASIS Java <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org> > Date: 28/04/2009 12:43 > Subject: Re: [sca-j] [NEW ISSUE] Section 10.13 on @OneWay requires a > normative statement > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Mike, > I agree that this needs to be made normative. > > I had always thought that @OneWay applied only to interface methods. > The reference to class methods (in the original text and your proposal) > surprises and intrigues me, because this suggests that @OneWay could > be applied to a service implementation method without being applied to > the corresponding interface method. If this is legal, it would mean > that the client invokes the service synchronously, and the service > returns back to the client immediately and dispatches the method for > subsequent execution. > > Do we want to allow this interaction pattern? If we do want to allow > it, then I think we need to make this more explicit in the text. > > Simon > > Mike Edwards wrote: > > > > *** NB I am happy for this new issue to be treated as a comment on the > > Public Review draft - I just don't want this item lost *** > > > > Raiser: Mike Edwards > > > > Target: sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev6.doc > > > > Description: > > > > There is a sentence in section 10.13 about @OneWay which in effect > > describes a normative requirement but is not in the > > form of a normative statement: > > > > Lines 1923 - 1925: > > > > "The @OneWay annotation is used on a Java interface or class method to > > indicate that invocations will be dispatched > > in a non-blocking fashion as described in the section on Asynchronous > > Programming." > > > > This must be recast into the form of a normative statement > > > > Proposal: > > > > Replace lines 1923 - 1925 with the following normative statement: > > > > When a Java interface method or a Java class method is annotated with > > @OneWay, the SCA runtime MUST ensure that all > > invocations of that method are executed in a non-blocking fashion, as > > described in the section on Asynchonous Programming. > > [JCA90052] > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > / > > / > > > > /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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]