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

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your comments. They look fine to me. The changing of the MAY to a MUST in the running state is an improvement as it does require the SCA Runtime to invoke component implementation in response to a client request.

I have just done an updated draft version 5 that included Vamsi’s comments and posted this to the list. Due to a bit of bad timing, I posted the updated proposal just before your comments arrived. My updated version should appear on the list soon but will not include your comments.

I will wait for a bit to see if anyone else has any more comments. I will then post a revision 6 which will include your comments too.

Thanks,

Mark

From: Mike Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: 17 March 2009 10:12
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

Mark,

Comments and suggested changes done inline in the attached updated document. Mostly editorial except for
one significant change in the Running state, which I'd appreciate everyone to look at:

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

From:	"Mark Combellack" <mcombellack@avaya.com>
To:	<sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	16/03/2009 22:16
Subject:	RE: [sca-j] [ISSUE 65] There is no lifecycle defined for SCA Components - Updated proposal revision 4

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 | Eastern Business Park | 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 | Eastern Business Park | St. Mellons | Cardiff | CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 | mcombellack@avaya.com
[attachment "sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev2_plus_Issue 65-rev4.doc" deleted by Mike Edwards/UK/IBM] ---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

sca-j message