[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-j] [ISSUE 105] RFC2119 Language is needed for C&I Specification- responses to comments and updated draft
Mike, See my responses inline. I will raise 4 issues as noted. Simon Mike Edwards wrote: > > Simon, > > Responses inline... > > New proposal draft: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/31694/sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd04_proposal2.pdf > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/31693/sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd04_proposal2.doc > > > 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: Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> > To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org > Date: 05/03/2009 20:37 > Subject: Re: [sca-j] Groups - SCA Java C&I WD04 proposal (PDF) > (sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd04_proposal.pdf) uploaded > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Mike, > Here my comments from a complete review of the document. I have not > repeated the comments that I made on Monday's call, except for the > final one about the implementation.java schema to remind us that an > issue is needed for this. Line numbers are taken from the PDF document. > I have indicated those comments for which I think issues are needed. > > 1. Page 1 (front cover): replace "supercedes" by "supersedes". > *<mje>Fixed - although disputed</mje>* > Perhaps these might convince you: http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=supersede&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supercede > 2. Line 20: Refer to latest version of Assembly spec. > *<mje>It is the latest public version - have to wait for CD03 to be > public</mje>* > > 3. Line 23: Refer to latest version of JavaCAA spec. > *<mje>Ditto</mje>* > > 4. Line 36: Non-normative "may". > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > > 5. Lines 47-48: Contradiction with lines 143-144. Here it says that > an SCA interface defined by a Java class is not remotable. > In lines 143-144 it says that implementation classes can be > marked with @Remotable. We need to decide which is correct. > [ISSUE NEEDED] > *<mje>OK -leaving this for the issue</mje>* > The issue (JAVA-134) was resolved yesterday. The words in lines 47-48 need to be changed to match the words in lines 143-144. > 6. Line 49: Add reference [JAVACAA]. > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > > 7. Line 90: The "can also define" suggests that @Service could specify > both an interface and the implementation class. The "as opposed to" > that precedes it suggests that it's one or the other. The spec needs > to be clear on whether or not this should be allowed. [ISSUE NEEDED] > *<mje>Not sure of your point here - should be clearer when you raise the > issue</mje>* > OK, will do. > 8. Lines 109 and 132: Namespace appears in wrong font. > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > 9. Lines 112, 135 and 138: "interface" should not be in bold font, as > this isn't Java code. > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > 10. Lines 143-144: See comment 5 above. > *<mje>ok</mje>* > 11. Lines 156-158 and 166-168: Almost an exact repetition. I suggest > removing the 166-168 version as the 156-158 version is more complete. > *<mje>Fixed - although not in the way suggested</mje>* > > 12. Line 191: Two spaces after the "=" sign. > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > 13. Lines 195, 200, 233, 236 and 343: remove "public or protected". > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > 14. Line 203 (also 235 and 238): Should say that injection always occurs > before the first service method is called (as in the previous > paragraph). > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > 15. Line 207 and 241: Non-normative "optional". > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > 16. Lines 209-210: Replace "references can also be determined" by > "references are determined". Similar change needed in 243-244. > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > 17. Line 220: Typo "propertoes". Are these good to eat? :-) > *<mje>Fixed - my toes are very proper, thank you</mje>* > 18. Line 229: Space after the dot. > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > 19. Line 259: What does the "unambiguously" mean? Just that every parameter > must be marked with either @Property or @Reference? If so, there is > a potential problem. What if there are two constructors that both > have all of their parameters marked with either @Property or @Reference? > The two constructors could have the same property/reference names or > different property/reference names. In both cases, this would be an > error. I think the best way to handle this is to add words in the > JavaCAA spec to outlaw these illegal combinations. It would also be > helpful to clarify the meaning of "unambiguously" here. [ISSUE NEEDED] > *<mje>OK, an issue is needed here I think. "Unambiguously" to me > requires that each and* > *every parameter not only has either a @Reference or a @Property > annotation but also that* > *the annotations declare a name.* > > *The case of 2 constructors meeting the requirements listed needs to be > dealt with - both* > *for the @Constructor annotation and for the constructors with all > parameters annotated.* > *It is illegal for there to be more than 1 constructor that meets these > criteria. There is* > *an implied ordering I think - ie @Construtor annotated constructor > first, then a* > *constructor with all parameters annotated then a no-arg constructor. I > think the issue may* > *need to make changes to this C&I spec as well as the CAA spec.</mje>* > I will raise the issue. > 20. Lines 265-269. There has been some discussion on the email list about > this. It needs fixing. See my comments in > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/email/archives/200902/msg00243.html > *<mje>I've left this - needs an issue</mje>* > OK, will do. > 21. Lines 345-346: Text reads "...API methods....methods...". Remove the > second "methods" on line 346. > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > 22. Lines 489, 499, 508, 517: When this issue was resolved, we agreed to > add an editorial comment pointing out the lower case "s" in the second > method name. This wasn't done when the issue resolution was applied. > *<mje>Fixed - I commented every method</mje>* > 23. Line 643: Delete conformance statement JCI00005, because this is > already covered by JCI00001. > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > 24. Line 644: Delete conformance statement JCI00006, because this is > already covered by JCI00004. > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > 25. Line 678: Change "composite" to "contribution". > *<mje>Fixed</mje>* > 26. Appendix A: Add schema for implementation.java and refer to it in > the Conformance section. [ISSUE NEEDED] > *<mje>OK</mje>* > I'll raise this issue as well. Simon > Simon > > mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com wrote: > > The document named SCA Java C&I WD04 proposal (PDF) > > (sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd04_proposal.pdf) has been submitted by Dr. Mike > > Edwards to the OASIS Service Component Architecture / J (SCA-J) TC > document > > repository. > > > > Document Description: > > > > > > View Document Details: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=31463 > > > > Download Document: > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31463/sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd04_proposal.pdf > > > > > > PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email > application > > may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy > and paste > > the entire link address into the address field of your web browser. > > > > -OASIS Open Administration > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]