Re: [sca-j] ISSUE 122: EJB Binding - Remove references to conversationalfunction - proposal v2 and Call for action

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

Anish,
Thanks for taking the time to review. I've addressed the editorial comments and will post those updates once we resolve your non-ed comment.

It is legal to remove a stateless session bean, but the effect is not visible to the client. That is, you can successfully invoke a business method after calling remove.

What if we changed the behavior column to one of:
(a) N/A
(b) not-applicable
(c) This is a no-op for stateless session beans.

Or possibly even better:
(d) Remove the first two rows of the table as there is nothing SCA specific to say about the remove() or getPrimaryKey() methods. Further, there are more methods in the EJBObject and EJBLocalObject interfaces which currently aren't mentioned at all in the table, so the table has never been an exhaustive treatment of those interfaces.

I have a slight preference for (c) or (d).

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

Anish Karmarkar ---06/12/2009 02:13:18 AM---Two very minor ed comments: 1) 3rd para in section 1 (which has only one sentence) can be merged

From:	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
To:	David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:	sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	06/12/2009 02:13 AM
Subject:	Re: [sca-j] ISSUE 122: EJB Binding - Remove references to conversational function - proposal v2 and Call for action

---

Two very minor ed comments:

1) 3rd para in section 1 (which has only one sentence) can be merged 
with the 5th para (right after the bullets). They belong together.
2) s/Stateful session beans are out of scope in this 
specification/Stateful session beans are out of scope for this 
specification/

One non-ed comment:

1) The table in section 6.1 now says that 'Remove' is a no-op. We don't 
have very many RFC 2119 keywords right now. But if this table is a MUST, 
then support for stateful session beans can't be an extension point.

-Anish
--

David Booz wrote:
> I made some textual updates to section 1 following the comments from the 
> last telecon, rewording the removal of stateful session beans to 'out of 
> scope'. No other updates have been made as no other textual changes have 
> been proposed.
> 
> The sense of the TC was that some time was needed to contemplate the 
> removal of stateful session bean support from the spec. This is your 
> reminder to put your thoughts into email.
> 
> /(See attached file: sca-ejbbinding-1.1-spec-wd-03+issue122_v2.doc)/
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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