Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Possible duplicate functionality offered byconstrainingType and component

[Michael Beisiegel <mbgl@us.ibm.com>]

Blast from the past, some slides from the f2f in jan 07. Allowing for typing
of the child elements
of prop, service, and ref in component
we already have along with the compatibility rules.
+1 on getting rid of constraining type.

Michael

From:	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
To:	OASIS Assembly <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	09/30/2008 01:10 PM
Subject:	[sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Possible duplicate functionality offered by constrainingType and component

---

Title: Possible duplicate functionality offered by
constrainingType and 
component

Description: constrainingType was created to allow for the top-down use
case. A constrainingType, unlike a componentType, is independent of the
implementation. But the schema for component has minOccurs="0"
for 
<implementation>. A component without an implementation is very similar
to a constrainingType, in the sense that it specifies the shape (in 
terms of references, services and properties), which is independent of
the implementation. Given this do we need a separate syntactic structure
for constrainingType?

Proposal:
none right now.

-Anish
--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

SCA_Assembly_TopDown_V02.ppt