RE: [sca-j] [ISSUE 65] There is no lifecycle defined for SCA Components - Updated proposal revision 5

["Mark Combellack" <mcombellack@avaya.com>]

Hi Vamsi,

Thanks for your review comments. I have incorporated them into revision 5 of the proposal for Issue 65 that is attached to this email.

I have highlighted in yellow the changes in the proposal from revision 3 (which we discussed on the call yesterday)

Thanks,

Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C Vamsi [mailto:vamsic007@in.ibm.com]
> Sent: 17 March 2009 04:26
> To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [sca-j] [ISSUE 65] There is no lifecycle defined for SCA
> Components - Updated proposal revision 4
> 
> 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-rev5.doc