Re: [sca-j] [ISSUE 55] SCA Java Specifications do not Adequately Define theComponentType of a Java implementation - Updated Proposal

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

Hi Mike,

A few comments/questions on the proposal in the attached
sca-javaci-draft-20070926_Issue55b.doc are given below.

Line 395: It should be @Reference instead of @Required

Line 398: It should be @Reference instead of @Required

Lines 475-477: Why is the multiplicity 1..1 (equivalent to required=true)
incase of interface and 0..n (equivalent to required=false) incase of
array/collection of interface?  Should it be 0..1 instead of 1..1 so that
it is consistent (equivalent to required=false) in both cases? Or else we
should change 0..n to 1..n so that it is consistent with required=true
which is the default value for required attibute of @Reference annotation.

++Vamsi
Apache Tuscany Committer  http://tuscany.apache.org
Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC  http://geronimo.apache.org



                                                                       
             Mike Edwards                                              
             <mike_edwards@uk.                                         
             ibm.com>                                                   To
                                       "OASIS Java"                    
             12/12/2008 15:57          <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>    
                                                                        cc
                                                                       
                                                                   Subject
                                       [sca-j] [ISSUE 55] SCA Java     
                                       Specifications do not Adequately
                                       Define the ComponentType of a Java
                                       implementation - Updated Proposal
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       




Folks,

Here is an updated version of the proposal for Issue 55:




Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com








Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU






(See attached file: sca-javaci-draft-20070926_Issue55b.doc)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

sca-javaci-draft-20070926_Issue55b.doc