RE: [sca-j] [ISSUE 65] There is no lifecycle defined for SCA Components -Updated proposal revision 4

[C Vamsi <vamsic007@in.ibm.com>]

Some comments on the proposal...

Line 210: *an* SCA

Line 212: *an* SCA

Line 214-215: "... an instance of the component implementation object ..."
or "... an instance of the component implementation class ..."?

Line 219: To make it consistent across the doc, change "business requests"
to "service requests".

Line 228: "In this case" instead of "In which case".

Line 234: constructor. c in lowercase

Line 236: constructor. c in lowercase

Line 256: "component implementations" instead of "Component
Implmentations". c and i in lowercase.

Line 257-259: Change "The SCA Runtime MUST throw a
ServiceUnavailableException if a component implementation invokes an
operation on an injected reference that refers to a target that has not yet
been initialized."

to

"If a component implementation invokes an operation on an injected
reference that refers to a target that has not yet been initialized, the
SCA Runtime MUST throw a ServiceUnavailableException."

Line 272: "component implementations" instead of "Component
Implmentations". c and i in lowercase.

Line 273-275: Change "The SCA Runtime MUST throw a
ServiceUnavailableException if a component implementation invokes an
operation on an injected reference that refers to a target that has been
destroyed."

to

"If a component implementation invokes an operation on an injected
reference that refers to a target that has been destroyed, the SCA Runtime
MUST throw a ServiceUnavailableException."

++Vamsi
Apache Tuscany Committer  http://tuscany.apache.org
Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC  http://geronimo.apache.org


                                                                           
             "Mark Combellack"                                             
             <mcombellack@avay                                             
             a.com>                                                     To 
                                       <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>        
             17/03/2009 03:44                                           cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: [sca-j] [ISSUE 65] There is no  
                                       lifecycle defined for SCA           
                                       Components - Updated proposal       
                                       revision 4                          
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





Hi,



Based on the comments in the conference call, I have produced version 4 of
the specification.



To simplify identifying the changes, I have highlighted them in yellow.



Thanks,



Mark

Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | EasternBusinessPark| St.
Mellons | Cardiff| CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 |
mcombellack@avaya.com



From:Mark Combellack [mailto:mcombellack@avaya.com]
Sent: 15 March 2009 21:28
To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sca-j] [ISSUE 65] There is no lifecycle defined for SCA
Components - Updated proposal revision 3



Hi,



Following on from Simons comments in [1], I have updated the proposal by
using Simon’s proposed wording changes. This new version is attached as
version 3.



Thanks,



Mark



[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200903/msg00061.html

Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | EasternBusinessPark| St.
Mellons | Cardiff| CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 |
mcombellack@avaya.com



From:Mark Combellack [mailto:mcombellack@avaya.com]
Sent: 12 March 2009 13:51
To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sca-j] [ISSUE 65] There is no lifecycle defined for SCA
Components - Updated proposal revision 2



Hi,



As discussed in our conference calls, I have updated the proposal for
JAVA-65 to remove the PostInit and PreDestroy phases to simplify the model.
The attached document contains the revised proposal



All changes for Issue 65 are contained in a new chapter 4.



The changes between this new revision 2 and the original proposal are:



   Removed the @PostInit annotation and associated state in the lifecycle
   model
   Removed the @PreDestroy annotation and associated state in the lifecycle
   model



This update completes my action 2009-02-19-02.



Thanks,



Mark

Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | EasternBusinessPark| St.
Mellons | Cardiff| CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 |
mcombellack@avaya.com

 (See attached file: sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev2_plus_Issue 65-rev4.doc)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev2_plus_Issue 65-rev4.doc