[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Document with proposed resolutions to JCA issues120, 121, 122, 123
Hi Simon, Editorial nit - in at least one place you appear to have deleted the word "element" at the start of a description. This construction appears in other places, and it probably should be consistent. Hmm: BJC 20021 currently reads: "For an SCA service with a binding.jca element with the @uri attribute value specified, if the resource is not present at the JNDI location identified by the @uri attribute or is not an Activation Spec the SCA runtime MUST raise an error" If I'm interpreting this correctly, Demorgan's law suggests a rewrite: (!present || !activation spec) is equivalent to !(present && activation spec) I think this is saying that the JNDI location must identify a resource, and that resource must be an Activation Spec. I'd reword this as: "For an SCA service with a binding.jca element with the @uri attribute value specified, if the JNDI location identified by the @uri attribute does not locate an Activation Spec, the SCA runtime MUST raise an error." Likewise for BJC 20022, which reads: "For an SCA reference with a binding.jca element with the @uri attribute value specified, if the resource is not present at the JNDI location identified by the @uri attribute or is not a Connection Factory the SCA runtime MUST raise an error" I'd change this to: "For an SCA reference with a binding.jca element with the @uri attribute value specified, if the JNDI location identified by the @uri attribute does not locate a Connection Factory, the SCA runtime MUST raise an error Feels to me like the normative statements for BJC20026 & BJC20027 could (should?) be combined into one. Instead of: "The value of the outboundInteraction/operation/@name attribute MUST be unique within the ouboundInteraction element" and "The value of the outboundInteraction/operation/@name attribute MUST match the name of one of the operations in the containing service's or reference’s interface" why not: "For the value of the outboundInteraction/operation/@name attribute, if the value matches any other operation/@name attribute value under the same outboundInteraction element, or if the value does not correspond to the name of one of the operations in the interface for the containing service or reference, the SCA runtime MUST raise an error." BJC20029 is appearing before the @type attribute, rather than after. This is unrelated to Simon's changes: Is it just me, or does the normative statement JBC20016 not make sense? It says if something does not exist, it must be interpreted as implementing MessageListener. How can something that doesn't exist implement anything? BJC20023 says: "The value of the inboundInteraction/inboundOperation/@name attribute MUST match the name of one of the operations in the containing service's or reference's interface". Don't we want this to read: "If the value of the inboundInteraction/inboundOperation/@name does not match the name of one of the operations in the interface from the containing service or reference, then the SCA runtime MUST raise an error." -Eric. On 03/10/2010 09:13 AM, Simon Holdsworth wrote: OFD2683B32.CEB693A3-ON802576E2.005D935D-802576E2.005E1E39@uk.ibm.com" type="cite"> |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]