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

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Folk,

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.

<Done>

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

  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."
<Done>

  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.
<Done>

  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.
<Done>

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".
<Done>

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.
<Done>

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?
<Done>

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.
<Done> 

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.
<Done>

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 10.6.2.1, 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

sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge.doc

sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge.pdf