Re: [sca-j] CD candidate for javacaa spec uploaded

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

In Issue 44 resolution, should we be using "void return type" instead of
"void return value"?

++Vamsi


                                                                           
             Anish Karmarkar                                               
             <Anish.Karmarkar@                                             
             oracle.com>                                                To 
                                       OASIS Java                          
             16/08/2008 14:04          <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>        
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       [sca-j] CD candidate for javacaa    
                                       spec uploaded                       
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           



I have uploaded the doc and pdf versions of WD04:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/29077/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-WD04.doc

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/29078/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-WD04.pdf


The pdf version is non-diffed. If you want to see the diff, use the doc
version and enable the change-marking 'on the screen'.

When commenting if you need to use line numbers, pl. do so using the pdf
version and not the doc version.

For this draft, I went through the issues list and applied resolutions
of all the issues against this spec whose status was 'resolved'. I have
updated JIRA for those issues as well.

The changes for this draft from the last draft are:
1) applied resolutions of issues 12, 22, 23, 29, 31,
35, 36, 37, 44, 45
2) reapplied resolution of issue 9 as it wasn't done correctly
3) updated the NS

Resolutions of issues 4, 11, 26, 33 were already applied before. Issue
33 resolution was applied before but not noted in the 'Revision History'
section.

So, if we were to accept this draft as a CD, it would mean that the
following issues can be closed:
4, 9, 11, 12, 22, 23, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 44, 45

I do have two comments:
1) For issue 37 I removed all statements that had restrictions wrt
access modifiers, per the resolution. But I did not add a statement that
there is no restriction wrt access modifers. Do we need that?
2) For issue 44, there was no explicit text for @Destroy in the issue
resolution. Please make sure that I got it right.

Thanks.

-Anish
--

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