OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-j message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: ASSEMBLY-218: Review Interface Compatibility logic to accomodate @Remotableattribute in the SCDL - proposal

Following discussion of Assembly-218 [1] on the Assembly TC telecon today,
I took a closer look at the Assembly, Java CAA and Java POJO specs. I've
copied the Java TC on this email for awareness.

The assembly spec rule for matching interfaces based on remotability is
fundamentally important, so I don't think we can change that.  The Java CAA
spec is the one that defines @remotable for <interface.java/>.  The Java
POJO spec contains the componentType introspection rules and describes the
use of Java POJOs for component implementations.

IMHO, if there is any spec text in error or at the very least that we
should consider updating, it is the Java POJO spec [2]. Issue Java-125 [3]
and Java-153 [4] introduced the @remotable attribute but did not address
the trip hazard that is described in Assembly-218.

In the Java POJO spec [2], see section 2.2 (toward the end) and section
2.3.  At both points the spec makes some very specific statements about
interface remotability but leaves out any mention that the determination of
remotability could be further altered by the introduction of @remotable on
a component definition.  Interestingly, section 2.2 was heavily updated
when Java issues 125 and 153 were resolved.  Those were the Java issues
that introduced @remotable on <interface.java/> in the first place.  The
Java POJO spec is (in general) maniacally focused on the componentType of a
Java component (I'm sure that's what was in all of the Java TC minds when
it resolved 125 and 153).  This trip hazard [1] comes along with the
combination of a component definition which seems to have the ability to
assert remotability into an underlying componentType and an introspected
componentType which says local.

Let's see if others buy this analysis before I suggest moving the issue to
the Java TC.

[1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-218
[3] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-125
[4] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-153

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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]