Re: [sca-j] JAVA-153: Proposed resolution

[David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>]

I'm struggling with the wording.

I think it would be more appropriate to say that "the service contract for a Java component cannot be defined by the <interface.java> XML element" Instead of "cannot be", "is not" might be an improvement. We might also consider explaining why this is so, "because the service contract for a Java component is always introspected from the Java implementation class."

And a similar change for section 2.5.


Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com

Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com> wrote on 05/01/2009 03:43:49 AM:

> [image removed]
>
> [sca-j] JAVA-153: Proposed resolution
>
> Simon Nash
>
> to:
>
> OASIS Java
>
> 05/01/2009 03:44 AM
>
> I am attaching a Java CI spec with inline proposed changes to
> resolve JAVA-153.  The changes are in sections 2.2 and 2.5 (the
> latter is needed because it turns out we also have a problem
> with the Java CI spec's description of the callbackInterface
> attribute of <interface.java>).
>
>    Simon
>
> [attachment "sca-javaci-1.1-spec-wd10+issue153.doc" deleted by David
> Booz/Poughkeepsie/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