Some more comments

["Jacques R. Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

[Comment 11b] :  The chicken or the egg... (or the COmposite vs. the Component)

(rewording of my previous comment #11)

 

It is unclear why the Composite is always the outermost construct, as the markup

indicates. It seems that the mark-up does not allow to expose the Component

directly to users, yet the component has the same interfacing constructs

(Services / Properties / References) as the Composite.

Yet apparently SCA implementations will often directly expose Components (which may

or may not be implemented as composites), e.g. in the C++ model.

Couldn't the mark-up reflect this abstraction and make Component top-level (beside or even instead of Composite?)

NOTE: this comment could be modified along my previous comment #9: if some form of "container"

is needed for all kinds of SCA constructs (Services, Rferences, Components, Composites...)

that should probably be something new, different from "Composite".

 

 

[Comment 12]: Best practices for most typical architecture patterns?

 

The control model suggested by Composites, is of Components invoking each others via

references and wires. It is unclear how that plays with more decoupled architecture patterns

between components:

- publish-subscribe async communication between Components

(should a queue manager be itself modeled as a component?)

- event listeners.

 

 

[Comment 13]: I don't think there is a clear definition of what an "SCA runtime" is.

 

 

Regards,

Jacques