Re: [sca-j] Raw chat log for April 3 SCA-J TC call

[Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>]

I saw that statement as well but interpreted
differently.  I took it to mean that any intents applied to an interface
are necessarily applied to the service or reference using the interface.
 This is not the same as requiring that the intents of an interface
must be explicitly applied to implementation of a service using the interface.

I understand your point about the similar
principle implying that the intents would not need to be stated explicitly
for the implementation, but I recall the conclusion we reached Friday was
due to the fact that someone could remove the Java interface and use the
implementation class to define the interface.  In this case, if the
intents were not stated on the class, they would be lost (thus changing
the contract) if the interface is replaced with the class for the interface
definition.

Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC 
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com

Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>

04/06/2009 05:28 AM

To	OASIS Java <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	Re: [sca-j] Raw chat log for April 3 SCA-J TC call

Bryan Aupperle wrote:
> 
> This is not a comment about the minutes but some additional thoughts
on 
> Anish's comment that impl methods should be required to have the same
> interaction intents as the interfaces that they implement.
> 
> This should be true independent of the interface language and needs
to 
> be applied to the other implementation languages as well.
> 
I found a conformance statement in the Assembly spec that seems to
contradict what we agreed about this in Friday's sca-j call.  It's
on
lines 2698/2699 in the 117a proposed draft.
  "Any service or reference that uses an interface marked with
intents
  MUST implicitly add those intents to its own @requires list. [ASM80008]"

Note the use of the word "implicitly".  If the service implementation
were required to copy the intents from the interface, this would be
adding the intents explicitly, not implicitly.

It could be argued that the case described by these Assembly words
is not exactly the same as the one we were discussing on Friday.
However, it seems to me that there is a similar principle in both
cases, i.e., that interface intents are applied implicitly and don't
need to respecified explicitly.

   Simon

> Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
> STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
> 
> Research Triangle Park,  NC
> +1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
> Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com
> 
> 
> *Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>*
> 
> 04/03/2009 11:28 AM
> 
>                  
> To
>                  OASIS
Java <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
>                  
> Subject
>                  [sca-j]
Raw chat log for April 3 SCA-J TC call
> 
> 
>                  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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