Re: [sca-j] new documents to review

[David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>]

Thanks for the quick review. See below.

As a result of these comments, I have started a rev4 containing these changes. If there are other review comments which are editorial, I'll incorporate them also and publish rev4 some time before our next call in Jan.


Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com

C Vamsi ---12/17/2008 03:11:53 AM---A few comments on CAA spec are given below: 0. There is "[1]" is the doc file name. Can we get rid

From:	C Vamsi <vamsic007@in.ibm.com>
To:	David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:	sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	12/17/2008 03:11 AM
Subject:	Re: [sca-j] new documents to review

---

A few comments on CAA spec are given below:

0. There is "[1]" is the doc file name.  Can we get rid of that?
<dab> That convention seems to have been started during creation of
CD01 and I didn't want to deviate.  All of the revs are like that.
</dab>

1. In page 1, under This Version, it says rev2 instead of rev3.
<dab> Good catch. No idea how I missed it will all the other
editorial stuff. </dab>

2. In section 7.1, the method descriptions for ComponentContext methods
seem to appear in the same order as the methods in the interface definition
except for the cast() method.  Change the interface definition so that
getRequestContext() in line 665 appears before cast() at line 662.
<dab> This is editorial, so I made the change. </dab>

3. Now that we say that the default name for @Property and @Reference
annotation on a setter method is the JavaBeans property name, should we add
a reference to JavaBeans spec?
<dab> Good idea. This is editorial, so I did it. </dab>

4. The text in lines 1704 thru 1706 is: "A component MUST NOT have two
services with the same Java simple name. If a Java implementation needs to
realize two services with the same Java simple name then this can be
achieved through subclassing of the interface."

I do not understand the second sentence in this.  Does it mean there will
be two services with the same name?? Can someone please explain?
Also, the text that is deleted seem to talk about realizing two services
with the same interface.  Whereas the new text is talking about two
services with same Java simple name.  The text is from resolution of
ISSUE-56 resolved at F2F in Nov.  I apologize for the late turn around on
this.
<dab> No, there will not be two services with the same name.  The sub-
classed simple name would have to be different from the parent
simple name.  The reason for the subclassing is that both services
provide the same operations. We clarified the terminology from 
interface to simple name because interface name could be taken to
mean the simple name plus the package name. </dab>

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



                                                                           
             David Booz                                                    
             <booz@us.ibm.com>                                             
                                                                        To 
             17/12/2008 01:58          sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org          
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       [sca-j] new documents to review     
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





There is now a Java CAA rev3 [1],[2] with 56,75, and 111 applied.  Anish,
there were a few editorial problems with your changes in rev2 that I fixed
up, but I did not do a thorough review of your changes.

[1]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30417/sca-javacaa-1%5B1%5D.1-spec-cd01-rev3.doc
[2]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30419/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd01-rev3.pdf

This is also a working draft 02 for the Java C&I spec  [3],[4] (I started
with 2 because there was a previous draft, if you don't like it I don't
care) with issues 32 and 55 applied as well as a bunch of editorial stuff
to get it in line with namespaces, document conventions, etc.  Since there
is no CD01 for this document, I guessed that I was supposed to make this a
WD instead of a rev.

[3]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30416/sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd02.doc
[4]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30415/sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd02.pdf



Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093  or  8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.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