[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
Fixed in WD05, except for what is noted below. -Anish -- Simon Nash wrote: > 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 Not included. > 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> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]