Re: [sca-j] ISSUE 107: RFC2119 Language is needed for the EJB BindingSpecification - proposal v3

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Dave,

Thanks for your updates.

I've had a go at improving section 3,
but I get the feeling that more is needed in that section, relating to
SCA <service/> elements
that use the EJB binding:



Also see my comments below.

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:	David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>
To:	sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	29/07/2009 16:44
Subject:	[sca-j] ISSUE 107: RFC2119 Language is needed for the EJB Binding Specification - proposal v3

---

Following Mike's review of the Issue 107 progress to date,
I have another revision (v3) for 107 ready for review.

Mike, there are a couple of your comments that I'd like to talk to you
about (still in the document).

1) Comment attached to section 3 ("Layout of section 3 is confusing...".
I restructured this section and re-worded things slightly, guessing at
your concerns, but am not really sure I understand your comment. Please
take a look at what I've done and let me know if I addressed the comment
or not.

No, your updates don't solve my issue.  There
is a whole context that is missing for this section - without that context,
I find
it impossible to work out what the section
is really saying.  I suspect you may think it so obvious that it does
not need to be
said, but coming to it cold, I felt lost.

When I talked about "two interfaces"
I meant it - let's look at what I mean.  The simpler case is an SCA
<reference/>
wired to an EJB offering some service:

<reference name="foo">
        <interface.java
class="foo.myService"/>
        <binding.ejb
uri="corbaname:rir:#ejb/fooMyServiceBeanHome"/>
<reference>

So, the interface of the reference is clear
- it is whatever is in foo.myService interface class.
The OTHER interface is the interface of the
EJB - the interface represented by fooMyServiceBeanHome in this case.

So what this whole section is talking about
is the compatibility of foo:myService interface with the fooMyServiceBeanHome
interface.
It needs to make that crystal clear, in my
opinion.

I note that there are NO compatibility rules
relating to SCA services exposed over the EJB Binding.  I find this
surprising.
What happens for an SCA service that uses
a "pure" SCA business interface, with no EJB related features?
 What can the
EJB ref interface look like?  I can't
answer this question - I hope that you can.

2) Comment attached to section 3.1 - I'd like to strike the sentence you
highlighted in your comment. Would that resolve the concern, or is there
still a concern?

Striking the sentence is OK.
However, I suspect that there is a need for
a discussion section which talks about the problems of the "poorly
suited"
interfaces and describes possible approaches
to dealing with those problems.

I removed your comments where I was nearly certain that I had addressed
it.

I know about the formatting problem is section 8 of the pdf document, I'll
correct that on the next iteration. I found it after I had already uploaded
the documents.

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/33580/sca-ejbbinding-1.1-spec-wd-04%20issue107_v3.pdf
[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/33579/sca-ejbbinding-1.1-spec-wd-04%20issue107_v3.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

---

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-ejbbinding-1.1-spec-wd-04 issue107_v3_mje.doc