[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] Groups - Updated CD01 Publication package (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-CD01.zip) uploaded
Hi Mike,
I've reviewed this version (Committee Draft 01 with your 2008-04-22
updates) of the SCA Assembly specification and I have the following
comments:
Editorial comments
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Page 1:
Should the date be changed from 18th March, 2008 to 22nd April, 2008
since that was the date of the last edit?
Page 18: lines 298 - 303
and Page 27: lines 747 - 754
and Page 38: lines 1204 - 1209
Could we reorder the descriptions of 1..1, 0..1, 1..n, 0..n to match the
order they are defined in the options. i.e. order them as 0..1, 1..1,
0..n, 1..n or change the order of the options to be 1..1, 0..1, 1..n,
0..n
Page 20: line 451
Missing space character between AccountService and {.
Page 20: line 453
No need for public keyword on a method of an interface. It is redundant
so should be removed.
Page 29: line 816
Extra blank line that should not be there?
Page 35: line 1071
For RFC 2119, should the text read "MUST be" rather than "MUST BE" (i.e.
lower case "be")
Page 46: section 6.4 Wires
There appears to be no sample in this section that shows doing wiring
using the <wire/> XML tag
Page 70: Line 2488
Binding section header is missing a section number.
Page 77: Line 2776 and 2780
The cross reference [1] refers to the Java Specification and not the SCA
Binding specification as described by the text.
Page 108: Lines 4091 - 4096
Inconsistent indentation of the paragraph. The rest of the document does
not do this.
Page 109: Lines 4098 - 4105
Inconsistent indentation of the paragraph. The rest of the document does
not do this.
Page 109: Lines 4131 - 4132
There are other supported interface types, e.g. C and C++
Page 111: Lines 4189 - 4190
I am presuming this will be filled in later?
Specification clarifications:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Page 19: lines 376 - 378:
What is the default value of many if not specified on a property? I am
presuming that it is false
Page 21: lines 478, 481 and 483
I thought we could not inject into private fields. I think there is a
Jira for this one.
Page 28: lines 771 - 774
And Page 39: lines 1230 - 1235
It says:
"If an interface is specified it must provide a compatible superset of
the interface provided by the implementation, i.e. provide a superset of
the operations defined by the implementation for the reference."
Should this be subset?
Page 30: lines 861 - 865
What is the default value for the many attribute on a property when many
is not specified? I am presuming that it is false.
Page 30: lines 866 - 868
What is the default value for the mustSupply attribute on a component
property when mustSupply is not specified? I am presuming that it is
false.
Page 42: lines 1346 - 1348
What is the default value for the many attribute on a composite property
when many is not specified? I am presuming that it is false.
Page 42: lines 1349 - 1354
What is the default value for the mustSupply attribute on a composite
property when mustSupply is not specified? I am presuming that it is
false.
Page 61: Lines 2100 - 2101 and line 2134
It says:
"Specifically, it cannot contain, ... property values..."
Line 2134 lists a default-property-value in the XSD
Page 62: Lines 2150 - 2153
It talks about "non-optional properties" and "non-optional references".
It defines non-optional properties but does not define non-optional
references.
Is a non-optional reference, a reference with a multiplicity of 1..1 or
1..n?
Page 108: Lines 4095 - 4096
"A service is remotable if it is defined by a WSDL port type or if it
[is] defined by a Java Interface marked with the @Remotable annotation"
There is a missing "is" in the sentence. I added it above as [is]
These are not the only ways to make a remotable service. If they are,
then C remotable services must define a WSDL interface or a Java
interface.
This paragraph should be deleted?
Page 109: Lines 4104 - 4105
"Currently a service is local only if it [is] defined by a Java
Interface not marked with the @Remotable annotation."
There is a missing "is" in the sentence. I added it above as [is]
Does this mean all C/C++ interfaces are Remotable?
Things that I am unsure of why the specification says what it does
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Not strictly document review comments. Rather general questions that I
had when reading the specification that the specification did not
explain why.
Page 65: Lines 2270 - 2271
Why is method or operation overloading not supported on @Remotable
interfaces?
We talk about being able to use existing code/services in SCA
applications. However, with this restriction, for example, if I have an
existing RMI Java Service that uses operation overloading, then I cannot
use it with SCA.
I hope my review comments make sense.
Thanks,
Mark
Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | Eastern Business Park |
St. Mellons | Cardiff | CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 |
mcombellack@avaya.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
> Sent: 23 April 2008 12:16
> To: sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [sca-assembly] Groups - Updated CD01 Publication package
(sca-
> assembly-1.1-spec-CD01.zip) uploaded
>
> The document revision named Updated CD01 Publication package
> (sca-assembly-1.1-spec-CD01.zip) has been submitted by Dr. Mike
Edwards to
> the OASIS Service Component Architecture / Assembly (SCA-Assembly) TC
> document repository. This document is revision #1 of
> sca-assembly-1.1-spec-CD01.zip.
>
> Document Description:
> CD01 Publication package, updated to conform to the Artifact URI
proposal
>
> View Document Details:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-
> assembly/document.php?document_id=28072
>
> Download Document:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-
> assembly/download.php/28072/sca-assembly-1.1-spec-CD01.zip
>
> Revision:
> This document is revision #1 of sca-assembly-1.1-spec-CD01.zip. The
> document details page referenced above will show the complete revision
> history.
>
>
> PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email
> application
> may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and
> paste
> the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
>
> -OASIS Open Administration
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]