sca-j message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-j] JAVA-125: proposed resolution
- From: Graham Charters <CHARTERS@uk.ibm.com>
- To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:06:06 +0000
Hi Simon, thanks for taking the time
to look at the proposal. I've added some comments below.
Regards,
Graham.
Graham Charters PhD CEng MBCS CITP
STSM, AIM Technical Lead OSGi Expert Groups, Master Inventor, UKISA Technical
Staff Member
IBM United Kingdom Limited, MP 146, Hursley Park, Winchester, SO21 2JN,
UK
Tel: (Ext) +44-1962-816527 (Int) 7-246527 (Fax)
+44-1962-818999
Internet: charters@uk.ibm.com
Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> wrote on 09/02/2009
14:49:39:
> [image removed]
>
> Re: [sca-j] JAVA-125: proposed resolution
>
> Simon Nash
>
> to:
>
> sca-j
>
> 09/02/2009 14:50
>
> Graham,
> Thanks for doing this. I have two comments.
>
> 1. I don't think it should be illegal to say @Remotable on the
> Java interface as well as on <interface.java>.
We allow a
> callback interface to be specified on <interface.java>
when
> it is also specified using a @Callback annotation on
the
> forward Java interface. This case seems extremely
similar.
>
This design was based on the belief that @Remotable
was similar to intents and if the developer has made a statement with the
annotation we shouldn't be changing that statement. If we override
an @Remotable and say "remotable=false", then local invocations
would start using by-reference semantics where an implementation may have
assumed it would receive a copy. This isn't clear cut, because the
absence of @Remotable may or may not have been a conscious choice, and
therefore we can't say whether specifying "remotable=true" is
overriding a conscious decision to leave off @Remotable, or whether it's
just the first time remotable has been considered for the interface.
> 2. Given that remotable interfaces are an assembly-level concept,
> and the base definition of <interface> is part
of the assembly
> specification, it seems strange for SCA to only define
the
> @remotable attribute for <interface.java>. Would
it make sense
> for this attribute to be part of the base <interface>
element?
>
I believed that this had been raised in the assembly
TC prior to the @remotable attribute being added to the C/C++ specs, but
Bryan has clarified to me that this is in fact not the case. I will
therefore raise this as an issue in the Assembly TC. If that is accepted,
we will still need some statement for how the attribute and annotation
interact.
> Simon
>
> Graham Charters wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Please find attached a document containing a proposed resolution
to
> > JAVA-125. The edits are as follows:
> >
> > 1. Section 3.1 - add and define a new @remotable attribute.
Also add a
> > new conformance statement for the relationship between the @Remotable
> > annotation and the @remotable attribute.
> > 2. Appendix A - add the attribute definition to the XML
schema for
> > interface.java.
> >
> > Changes considered, but excluded:
> > 1. Considered changing section 2.1.2 but this seemed to
be specifically
> > covering the metadata in the Java code, rather than the general
concept
> > of 'remotable'.
> > 2. Considered having an @remotableCallback attribute, but
given it is
> > an error to mix remote and local interfaces (section 6.7), I
concluded
> > the @remotable attribute should apply to both.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Graham.
> >
> >
> >
> > Graham Charters PhD CEng MBCS CITP
> > STSM, AIM Technical Lead OSGi Expert Groups, Master Inventor,
UKISA
> > Technical Staff Member
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited, MP 146, Hursley Park, Winchester,
SO21 2JN, UK
> > Tel: (Ext) +44-1962-816527 (Int) 7-246527
(Fax) +44-1962-818999
> > Internet: charters@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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
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]