Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Need definition of compatible for propertytypes

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

+1 to raising this issue.

The correct line number for [1] is 1045.

Do we really need this feature? Why allow @type or @element on component 
properties? The implementation declares the type of the property, it is 
tricky to allow subtypes and hope that it would get mapped correctly and 
would be allowed by the implementation/implementation language 
(especially when we want to allow multiple C&I types). Do we lose 
anything by removing this?

-Anish
--

David Booz wrote:
> TARGET: Assembly spec CD03 [1]
> 
> DESCRIPTION:
> Line 1036 of CD03 [1] says that if a component specifies a property 
> type, then that type must be compatible with the type of the same 
> property in the componentType. What does compatible mean? It might be as 
> simple as the same type of sub-type (i.e though some form of 
> inheritance), but it needs to be specified.
> 
> PROPOSAL:
> None
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31740/sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd03.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Dave Booz
> STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
> Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
> "Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
> Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
> e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
>