ISSUE 67: Component Type file name is too restrictive

[Scott Vorthmann <scottv@tibco.com>]

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-67

On Jun 17, 2008, at 5:27 AM, Bryan Aupperle wrote:
>
> RAISER: Bryan Aupperle
>
> TARGET: SCA Assembly Specification
>
> DESCRIPTION: (Line Numbers taken from SCA Assembly Specification  
> Committee Draft 01 (dated 2008-04-22))
>
> Lines 185-186 state: A component type file has the same name as the  
> implementation file but has the extension “.componentType”.
>
> This works only for languages where the executable artifact for an  
> implementation is distinct from the executable artifact from other  
> implementations. In languages like C++, multiple implementations are  
> likely linked together is a common executable file (DLL).  Source  
> files are not appropriate for basing the name either since the  
> actual code files (as opposed to header files) typically will not be  
> available at runtime.  A case could be made for basing componentType  
> files on header files, but this does not work for all languages  
> either (C in particular).
> We need to allow for an implementation to point to the artifact(s)  
> defining the component type with no forced relationship between the  
> implementation artifact name and the componentType artifact(s).
>
> PROPOSAL:
>
> Delete the above sentence and modify the following sentences to be:  
> The component type is defined by a componentType element in the  
> componentType file. The extension of a componentType files is  
> “.componentType” but its name and location depends on the type of  
> the component implementation: the specifics are described in the  
> respective client and implementation model specification for the  
> implementation type.
>
> Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
> STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
>
> Research Triangle Park,  NC
> +1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
> Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com