Re: [sca-assembly] Some review comments on sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Vamsi,

Sorry for missing the earlier set of
comments.

Responses inline and updates included
in new Rev4 version of spec.

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From:	C Vamsi <vamsic007@in.ibm.com>
To:	Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:	"OASIS Assembly" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	10/02/2009 17:35
Subject:	Re: [sca-assembly] Some review comments on sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf

---

Mike,

I will raise new issues as per your comments.  There are more comments
(the
first set actually) in an e-mail that I sent before the one you acted on.
See [1]

[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200902/msg00005.html

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


                    
                     
                     
          
             Mike Edwards      
                     
                     
             <mike_edwards@uk.  
                     
                    
             ibm.com>      
                     
                     
To 
                    
                  "OASIS
Assembly"                
   
             10/02/2009 22:47    
     <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org> 
                    
                     
                     
       cc 
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
  Subject 
                    
                  Re: [sca-assembly]
Some review      
                    
                  comments
on                    
    
                    
                  sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          
                    
                     
                     
          




Vamsi,

I'm sorry for missing your comments ahead of the call.  I've had a
proper
look at them now and I've
acted on them as described inline...

I incorporated the changes into an updated Rev4 along with the 3 editorial
fixes from the TC call today.

If anyone has any problems with these editorial fixes, please shout now!


Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com


                    
                     
                     
          
 From:       C Vamsi <vamsic007@in.ibm.com>  
                     
       
                    
                     
                     
          
 To:         C Vamsi <vamsic007@in.ibm.com>  
                     
       
                    
                     
                     
          
 Cc:         sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org  
                     
    
                    
                     
                     
          
 Date:       04/02/2009 20:55        
                     
               
                    
                     
                     
          
 Subject:    Re: [sca-assembly] Some review comments on  
                 
             sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf
                     
    
                    
                     
                     
          






Some more comments:

Line 870: 4.3.1 instead of 5.3.1?

Updated as an editorial fix

Section 4.4 name should be Component Property?

No - the whole section is "Component" and this is a subheading

Line 1064: @name attribute

Fixed as an editorial

Line 1064-1066: Should the wording be made consistent with that of service
and reference elements?

I think that's a subject for an Issue

Line 1078: change to "Overrides the many specified for this property
in the
component type of the implementation."

Fixed as an editorial

Lines 1152-1154: Multiple property elements with same property name is
a
violation of "[ASM50030]"

I agree.  That's a subject for an issue.

Line 1157: stockQuoteService with a small s

Fixed as an editorial

Line 1166: stockQuoteService with a small s

Fixed as an editorial

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



            C
            Vamsi/India/IBM@I
            BMIN        
                     
                     
  To
                     
                sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
            05/02/2009 01:26    
                     
                cc

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









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

Fixed - editorial

Line 225: us xs:QName for consistency

Fixed - editorial

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

Means that  <implementation/>
is optional with maxOccurs=1

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

Fixed - editorial

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

Fixed - editorial

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

It has a "?" in the pseudo-schema

Line 464: implementation instead of implementationervice

Fixed - editorial

Line 508: tags or annotations?

Fixed - editorial

Should example in 3.3 use @Service annotation as well?

It does not have to

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

No

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

No, it isn't - this needs fixing via an issue

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

Yes, Fixed - editorial - also removed reference
to "SCA Example Code document"

Line 607-608: Not true for Java EE

I don't understand this comment.  There
does not appear to be a problem with those lines.

Line 609: in xxx.composite is xxx needed?

"xxx" indicates that some kind
of file name is required

Section 4.1 name should be Component Implementation?

I take the view that this is implied by the
Section 4 heading which is "Component"

Section 4.2 name should be Component Service?

Ditto

Section 4.3 name shoulde Component Reference?

Ditto

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

Fixed - thanks for spotting that - the error
was actually in the appendix C section that
holds all the normative statements.

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


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




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












Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU