[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-j] Editorial Rework of CD02 Rev1 to Merge Policy AnnotationMaterial with rest of spec -- Issue 27
Yang Lei wrote:
> Here is the latest proposal for Issue 27 ported onto the CD02 Rev1 Merge
> version. The proposal is pending the comments from Dave and Mike
> regarding componentType of the implementation policy annotated java
> implementations.
>
> /(See attached file:
> sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge+Issue27.doc)//(See attached file:
> sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge+Issue27.pdf)/
>
> I saved the document by only turning myself as the reviewer.. However if
> the word document still shows the change from both Mike and me, please
> turn off Mike as the reviewer then you can see the changes related to
> Issue 27.
>
With these emails now up to 2.6 MB in size because of multiple
large attachments, and my inbox groaning under the strain,
I'd like to suggest that we start posting these review draft
documents to the TC document repository and provide links to
them in emails, rather than directly attaching the documents.
Thanks,
Simon
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yang Lei
>
> WebSphere SCA Feature Pack Development -- SCA Architect
> Phone: (919) 543 8887 T/L 441-8887
> e-mail: yanglei@us.ibm.com
>
> SCA Feature Pack:
> http://washome.austin.ibm.com/xwiki/bin/view/SCA2Team/WebHome
> RTP Technical Vitality:
> http://swgcomm.bluehost.ibm.com/siteFiles/labs.html?location=SEUS&type=cluster
> <http://swgcomm.bluehost.ibm.com/siteFiles/labs.html?location=SEUS&type=cluster>
> WebSphere Lab Advocate for Royal Bank of Scotland
>
>
> Inactive hide details for Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>Mike
> Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
>
>
> *Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>*
>
> 02/03/2009 08:09 AM
>
>
>
> To
>
> "OASIS Java" <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> cc
>
>
> Subject
>
> [sca-j] Editorial Rework of CD02 Rev1 to Merge Policy Annotation
> Material with rest of spec
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> /(See attached file: sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge.doc)//(See
> attached file:
> sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev1+Merge.pdf)/---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]