Re: [sca-j] SCA-J Working Draft 04 Review Comments

[Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>]

Here are my comments on the WD04 PDF file, in addition to the
comments that Mark has made already:

Major technical:
  1. On line 1340, a sentence was removed that should not have been.
     This sentence is "However, the @Property annotation must be used
     in order to inject a property onto a non-public field."  The same
     applies to line 1400.

Minor technical:
  2. On line 373, the words "onto the field" should be removed, as
     the injection could either be onto a field or by calling a
     setter method.

Major editorial:
  3. On page 3, copyright is shown as 2007.  It should be 2008 or
     xxxx, 2008.  From an Assembly discussion concerning this, I
     believe the correct date for xxxx is 2005.
  4. I believe the following issues have been resolved, but they are
     not listed as applied:
      20
      40
      42
      43
  5. The resolution to issue 9 is still applied incorrectly.  The
     description of ComponentContext.getServiceReferences() says that
     this method MUST throw an IllegalArgumentException if the reference
     has multiplicity greater than one.  This statement is incorrect and
     needs to be removed.

Minor editorial:
  6. There is a typo in the new text for issue 23 in section 6.1
     (asychronous for asynchronous).
  7. There is a formatting problem at the top of page 49 (text partly
     overlaid).
  8. Line 387 contains the wording
      ....calling the getConversationID() on the....
     This should be either
      ....calling getConversationID() on the....
     or
      ....calling the getConversationID() method on the....
  9. Lines 387-388 contain some text in monospaced Courier font that
     should be in the normal proportional font.
10. Line 373 is missing a period after "field".

Noticed during review:
  x. On line 1173, change "ConversationID" to "conversationID".


   Simon

Mark Combellack wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> Having reviewed the changes in WD04 version of the SCA-J specifications, 
> I have the following comments:
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *Editorial issues that should be fixed before we publish a CD*
> 
>  
> 
> Document Footer:
> 
> Document version is wrong – it has WD03 but this is WD04
> 
> Date is wrong – title page says 15 August 2008 but footer says 27 May 
> 2008-09-15
> 
>  
> 
> PDF Document:
> 
> Page numbers are wrong in the footer. It has Page 1 of 1, Page 2 of 2, 
> etc. The Word document is correct.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *Minor Editorial issues that don’t need to be fixed before we publish a CD*
> 
>  
> 
> Page 7 – line 15
> 
> Extra space between end of sentence and full stop (.)
> 
>  
> 
> Page 17 – line 332
> 
> The code is coloured differently to the rest of the document. The 
> keywords public and boolean should be purple
> 
> Actually – this is a general problem throughout the specification. Some 
> code is coloured – other code is not.
> 
>  
> 
> Page 17 – line 359
> 
> Text is using the wrong font size (10 point.) The rest of the document 
> uses 9 point font size.  This is not visible in the PDF version of the 
> specification but can be seen as the text being “more bold” in the Word 
> version.
> 
>  
> 
> Page 27 – line 780
> 
> Remove extra space between ServiceReference<B> and extends
> 
>  
> 
> Page 27 – line 795
> 
> Supplied is spelt wrongly – in the document it is spelt suppied
> 
>  
> 
> Page 39 – line 1349
> 
> Section is missing example of using @Property with a Constructor. It has 
> examples for the other two cases.
> 
>  
> 
> Page 40 – line 1408
> 
> Section is missing example of using @Reference with a Constructor. It 
> has examples for the other two cases.
> 
>  
> 
> Page 60 – lines 2235 to 2260
> 
> Text is using the wrong font size (10 point.) The rest of the document 
> uses 9 point font size.  This is not visible in the PDF version of the 
> specification but can be seen as the text being “more bold” in the Word 
> version.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *QUESTIONS*
> 
>  
> 
> I thought we agreed that we would update the style of the references 
> from [1] to [RFC2119]? Or was this for the Assembly specification?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  
> 
> Mark
> 
> Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | Eastern Business Park | St. 
> Mellons | Cardiff | CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 | 
> mcombellack@avaya.com <mailto:|mcombellack@avaya.com>
> 
>  
> 
>  
>