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: Re: [sca-j] JAVA-125: proposed resolution


Graham,
See replies inline.

   Simon

Graham Charters wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
I agree that if the interface says @Remotable, then it wouldn't
be valid for <interface.java> to say remotable="false".  I think
the other combinations are all OK:
   interface says nothing, <interface.java> says remotable="false"
   interface says nothing, <interface.java> says remotable="true"
   interface says @Remotable, <interface.java> says remotable="true"

I understood the wording in your proposal your proposal to be
disallowing the third of these.  My comment was intended to apply
to this case, saying that it should be allowed.

>  > 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.
> 
Thanks for doing this.  I agree that the Assembly issue does
not replace the need for this sca-j issue.

   Simon

> 
>  >    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]