[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-j] SCA-J Working Draft 04 Review Comments
I have reviewed sections 1 through 8 (next time I will make sure to review
sections 9 and 10 first). Here are some comments:
QUESTION: In sec 1.2, sould the references to SCA specification documents
be to v1.1 documents rather than v1.0? For e.g., line 36 points to v1.0 of
Assembly Spec.
Line 189 reads: "the Java interface type system, arguments and return of
the service methods..."
Change to "the Java interface type system, arguments and return value of
the service methods..."
Line 255 reads: Any method that returns "void" and has no declared ...
Change to: Any method with a void return type and has no declared ...
The following are editiorial issues:
Line 54: Remove the extra space before comma.
Line 2141, 2160, 2179: Remove the space before comma and add a space after
comma.
QUESTION: Are the editorial changes to account for conistent use of article
a/an before annotations being considered for CD draft? See [1].
Line 196 reads: ... Operations parameters and return values are passed
by-value.
Change to: ... Operations' parameters and return values are passed by-value
Line 286: Remove the extra article at the end of the line.
Line 373: Missing period after "onto the field"
QUESTION: Line 387, 388: Is the mix of font types intentional?
Line 861: Change "happens" to "happen".
Line 1044: Extra period at the end of the line.
Line 1076: Extra colon at the end of the line.
Line 1103: Extra period at the end of the line.
Line 1151: Extra period at the end of the line.
Line 1167: There is no @ before ConversationID.
Line 1178: Extra period at the end of the line.
Line 1208: Extra period at the end of the line.
Line 1223: Extra period at the end of the line.
Line 1254: Extra period at the end of the line.
Line 1284: Extra period at the end of the line.
Line 1314: Extra period at the end of the line.
Line 1377: Extra period at the end of the line.
Line 1540: Extra period at the end of the line.
Line 1573: change "Interfaces" to "interfaces".
Line 1611: Extra period at the end of the line.
Line 1654: Extra period at the end of the line.
++Vamsi
[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200808/msg00080.html
"Mark Combellack"
<mcombellack@avay
a.com> To
<sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
15/09/2008 15:22 cc
Subject
[sca-j] SCA-J Working Draft 04
Review Comments
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 | EasternBusinessPark| St.
Mellons | Cardiff| CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 |
mcombellack@avaya.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]