Some review comments on sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf

[C Vamsi <vamsic007@in.ibm.com>]

I have reviewed the document partially and here are some comments on
sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf:

Line 212: component with small c

Line 225: us xs:QName for consistency

Line 245: What does implementation 0..1 mean?

Line 377: "zero or more" in bold font.

Line 431-432: Change to "The implementation can use the supplied value in
any way that it chooses."

Section 3.1.4 does not talk about 0..1 for implementation

Line 464: implementation instead of implementationervice

Line 508: tags or annotations?

Should example in 3.3 use @Service annotation as well?

Line 578: Should the componentType have implementation.java tag as it is
computed from the java class?

Line 596: Is it possible to get the default value for the field by
introspection?

Line 600: "Component Implementation" spec instead of "Client and
Implementation" spec?

Line 607-608: Not true for Java EE

Line 609: in xxx.composite is xxx needed?

Section 4.1 name should be Component Implementation?

Section 4.2 name should be Component Service?

Section 4.3 name shoulde Component Reference?

Lines 791-792: replace 2 occurrences of "service" with "reference".

I will post more comments as I review further.  I would like to know if I
need to raise NEW ISSUE for some of these.

++Vamsi
Apache Tuscany Committer  http://tuscany.apache.org
Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC  http://geronimo.apache.org