NEW ISSUE: Specification wording unclear on how local and remoteable int

RAISER: Mark Combellack

TARGET: SCA Assembly Specification

DESCRIPTION:

The specification wording unclear on how local and remoteable interfaces are specified. It does not cover other options that may be used by other languages such as C/C++, BPEL, etc

(References taken from SCA Assembly Specification Committee Draft 01 with RFC 2119 updates (dated 2008-04-22))

Page 108: Lines 4095 - 4096

4095 A service is remotable if it is defined by a WSDL port type or if it [is] defined by a Java Interface

4096 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.

Page 109: Lines 4104 - 4105

4104 Currently a service is local only if it [is] defined by a Java Interface not marked with the @Remotable

4105 annotation.

There is a missing "is" in the sentence. I added it above as [is]

This paragraph could be interpreted to mean that all C/C++ interfaces are Remotable as they do not define a Java Interface and are not marked with @Remotable.

PROPOSAL:

Replace Page 108: Lines 4095 – 4096 with the following text:

“How a Service is identified as remotable is dependant on the Component implementation technology used. See the relevant SCA Implementation Specification for more information. As an example, to define a Remotable Service, a Component implemented in Java would have a Java Interface with the @Remotable annotation”

Replace Page 109: Lines 4104 - 4105

“How a Service is identified as local is dependant on the Component implementation technology used. See the relevant SCA Implementation Specification for more information. As an example, to define a Local Service, a Component implemented in Java would define a Java Interface that does not have the @Remotable annotation”

sca-assembly message