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

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

Mike Edwards wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Comment inline...
> 
> 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: 	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
> To: 	sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
> Date: 	07/04/2009 06:28
> Subject: 	Re: [sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Need definition of compatible 
> for property types
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> +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?
> 
> *<mje>*
> *I am somewhat surprised by Anish making this comment!*
> *One of the usecases of specifying the type of a property on a component 
> is to ensure*
> *that whichever implementation is used for that component conforms to 
> the needs of*
> *the component, when building using a top-down approach.  If the type 
> cannot be*
> *specified, then the composite is forced to accept whatever type the 
> implementation*
> *decides to provide and no error would get raised in the case of a 
> mismatch.*
> *</mje>*
> 

I'm not sure that I understand.
For top-down usecase, I would use the constrainingType.

-Anish
--


> 
> 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?
> 
> *<mje>*
> *+1 to disallowing subtypes...*
> *</mje>*
> 
> -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
>  >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>