OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-j message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Editorial Rework of CD02 Rev1 to Merge Policy Annotation Material with restof spec


I've carried out the editorial reworking of CD02 Rev1 to deal with the fact that the Policy Annotation material from
the (old) Section 10 was not well integrated with the rest of the spec, as discussed in yesterday's F2F call.

The reworked version of the spec is attached to this email.

The changes are all intended to be editorial, so we could simply decide to accept this version as CD02 Rev2
without the need for a formal issue.  However, if you would prefer, given the significant reworking of the material,
I will be happy to raise an Issue to cover the changes.

In the reworking I dealt with the comments that Simon Nash made on Issue 27, but which mostly had to do with the
pre-existing material and not the new & changed material proposed for Issue 27:

Comments from Simon Nash:

  1. The definition of @Intent is missing from chapter 8.


 2. Section 8.2 should not define the Constants interface and
    the SCA_PREFIX constant.  These should be defined in a
    separate section.

 3. In section 8.19, the description of @Qualifier is hard to
    understand.  It says "The @Qualifier annotation can be applied
    to an attribute as an @Intent annotation to indicate the
    attribute provides qualifiers for the intent."  A clearer
    description would be "The @Qualifier annotation can be
    applied to an attribute of an intent annotation definition
    to indicate the attribute provides qualifiers for the intent.
    The annotation definition containing the @Qualifier annotation
    MUST be annotated with @Intent."

 4. The forward references from chapter 8 to chapter 10 make it
    hard to understand the chapter 8 descriptions of these annotations
    without reading chapter 10 first.  Could we move chapter 10 to
    a new position between chapters 6 and 7?
<Done - Chapter 10 is now Chapter 7>

 5. In section 10.1, the example classes should not be declared
    in the package org.oasisopen.sca.annotations.  Instead, they
    should import the @Requires and @Reference annotation
    definitions from that package.

 6. The formal syntax for the @Requires annotation is specified as
      @Requires( “qualifiedIntent” | {“qualifiedIntent” [, “qualifiedIntent”]}
    which would only allow up to two intent strings to be specified.
    I believe this should say
      @Requires( “qualifiedIntent” | {“qualifiedIntent” [, “qualifiedIntent”]...}

<Done - I have chosen a different style of EBNF for these expressions which I hope is clearer
- comments welcome>

 7. The formal syntax for qualifiedIntent also seems more
    restrictive than it should be.  It is given as
      qualifiedIntent ::= QName | QName.qualifier | QName.qualifier1.qualifier2
    which would only allow up to two levels of qualification.
    I believe this should say
      qualifiedIntent ::= QName[.qualifier]...
<Done - as for previous>

 8. Similar to comment 6 above, the definition of qualifiers in
    section 10.2 should be
      qualifiers ::= ”qualifier” | {“qualifier” [, “qualifier”]... }

<Done - as for previous>

 9. In section 10.2, the definition of qualifier is
      qualifier ::= NCName | NCName/qualifier
    which uses "/" as a separator.  This is inconsistent with
    section 10.1, which used "." as a separator.
<Done - "." now used as separator>

10. In section 10.2.1, the last sentence of the second paragraph
    is misleading.  It says "These String constants are then
    available for use with the @Requires annotation and it should
    also be possible to use one or more of them as parameters to
    the @Intent annotation."  In fact they cannot be used as
    parameters to the @Intent annotation, but they are available
    for use as parameters to the specific intent annotation that
    defines them.

11. Section 10.3 says that intent annotations can be used on a class,
    an interface, a method or a field.  However, the definitions in
    chapter 8 say that these annotations can also be used on a parameter.
    The bulleted list in section 10.3 should include a bullet for
    "constructor parameter".

12. In section 10.3, the second last paragraph says that "If an
    annotation is specified at both the class/interface level and
    the method or field level, then the method or field level
    annotation completely overrides the class level annotation of
    the same type."  In this, the word "type" is not very precise.
    It would be clearer to say "... the same base intent name."
    using the precise terminology of section 10.1.

13. There are a number of problems with Example 2b in section 10.3.1.
    a. The <service> definitions for HelloService and HelloChildService
       should be inside the <component> definitions for
       HelloServiceComponent and HelloChildServiceComponent, not
       free-floating inside the <composite> definition.
    b. The <operation> definitions should not be within <component>
       defintions.  I believe the intention may have been to put them
       within <service> definitions.
    c. <operation> elements within <service> definitions were
       recently removed from the Assembly spec because of a decision
       by the Policy TC.
    d. The contents of the <operation> definitions don't seem
       consistent.  For the operations in HelloService, the <operation>
       elements provide fully explicit definitions of the intents that
       apply to the operations.  However, for the operations in
       HelloChildService, some of the <operation> elements only provide
       partial definitions of the intents that apply.  Specifically,
         "hello" specifies "confidentiality/transport" but does not
            specify "authentication" and "integrity/transport".
         "helloWorld" specifies "authentication" but does not
            specify "integrity/transport" or "confidentiality/message"

<The problems here are so extensive as to require the raising of a new issue >

14. Section 10.4 refers to a component type document associated
    with a Java class.  We no longer have component type documents
    for <implementation.java>.  Should this reference be removed?

15. Section 10.4.  The general rule for intents is not that they
    represent fundamental requirements of an implementation, but
    that they represents restrictions that can't be relaxed.  So
    an intent specified by an implementation could be overriden by
    some other intent that is more restrictive, but not by some
    other intent that is less restrictive.

16. Section 10.5 says that @PolicySets can be used on a class,
    an interface, a method or a field.  However, section 8.17 says
    that this annotation can also be used on a parameter.  The
    bulleted list in section 10.5 should include a bullet for
    "constructor parameter".

17. In the example in section 10.6.1, the Java interface declarations
    use dot-qualified names, which isn't correct Java syntax.  Also,
    these names use a "service." prefix which should be changed to
    "services." so that it is consistent with the code following
    these delarations.

18. In section 10.6.2, the PermitAll and DenyAll bullets have some
    added text that is bulleted but shouldn't be.
<Part of Issue 27 - not changed>

19. In section, should the fromUSDollarToCurrency method
    be declared in the AccountService interface?  It currently
    only appears in the implementation class.

<Left this one - I think there may be larger problems with the sample that need dealing
with under another issue>

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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]