RE: [sca-j] Java CAA Spec - CD02 Rev6, containing all latest resolved is

Hi,

I have the following review comments on this document. The line numbers are based on the PDF version:

Editorial comments

Front page – The chairs section is inconsistent with the C&I document
Notices page – copyright year should include 2009
Line 2: Wrong document title – It should be “SCA Java Common Annotations and APIs”
Inconsistent indentation on the following lines:

· 23-25

· 320-331

· 803

· 1013

· 2185 – 2186

· 2456 – 2514

· 2520 - 2554

Lines 29-34: Should we refer to the latest Assembly PR and Java C&I documents?
Line 382 – Change “injecting references or properties” to “injecting properties or references” since properties are injected before references
Lines 466 – Change “Nonblocking” to “Non-blocking” to be consistent with the other uses of “non-blocking” in that section (lines 466, 474 and 476)
Lines 519, 526 & 570: (Not being American so I could be wrong) – I thought it was ZIP code and not zip code. If I am correct, need to change occurrences of zip to ZIP in these lines
Line 588 – There is no section 6.7.1
Line 635 – Split into two lines as it is easy to misread it and think the @Context annotation applies to the someMethod() method
Line 927 & 958 – We are inconsistent with how we number our examples. This probably applies to the whole document
Line 1319 – This is a normative statement that has not have a conformance number
Line 1463 – section references of 8.14 and 8.15 are wrong. It should be 10.15 and 10.17
Lines 2354 – 2356 – Remove this paragraph as this is a duplication of the text from sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. We should just update the text to refer back to them rather than duplicating them
Line 2585 – Could we make the Conformance ID column in the table narrower since there is a lot of empty whitespace between the columns. We don’t need quite so much
Lines 2591 – 2593 – Copy acknowledgements from the C&I spec as Dave has updated them.
Lines 2596 – 2598 – Should we remove these before going to PR?

Probably new issues

Lines 487 – 489: Should there be a normative statement associated with this? It suggests that there is one in Assembly but should we be explicit here in the Java specifications?
Lines 646 – 647: Should there be a normative statement for this either here or in section 10.3?

Thanks,

Mark

From: Mike Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: 28 April 2009 08:54
To: OASIS Java
Subject: [sca-j] Java CAA Spec - CD02 Rev6, containing all latest resolved issues

Folks,

CD02 Rev6 of the Java CAA spec is available here:

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/32273/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev6.pdf
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/32272/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev6.doc

This version of the spec is a candidate for CD03 and for Public Review - please review carefully.

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

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