sca-policy message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-policy] ISSUE 38 - Improve description of the overides availableto the two different hierarchies in SCA: Proposal, Updated
- From: Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
- To: "OASIS Policy" <sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:31:34 +0000
Michael,
I see the point you're making - but
how come an implementation intent applies to <implementation.composite/>
in one place and then somehow leaps
to attach itself to <service/> in another place?
Rule 3 is all about implementation intents.
Deliberately so. Without it, there is no way in which a using
component can influence the intents
that apply to implementations within the composite used as an
implementation.
In your example, which are i4 and i6
- implementation or interaction?
Or is there something a lot deeper here
that I've missed?
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
"Michael Rowley"
<mrowley@bea.com>
12/02/2008 21:13
|
To
| Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "OASIS
Policy" <sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [sca-policy] ISSUE 38 - Improve
description of the overides available to the two different hierarchies
in SCA: Proposal, Updated |
|
I’m concerned about this new
rule 3:
Rule 3: For a composite used as
an implementation by a higher-level component, if the higher level component
applies implementation intents to the composite, those intents act as if
they are attached to the <composite/> element and are applied to
components contained within the composite as defined by Rule 1 for the
structural hierarchy.
I believe that you may end
up having intents that were meant to be defaults looping back and turning
into strict requirements.
I hope the following example
will illustrate. I’ll start with the higher composite in the implementation
hierarchy (I removed some things that don’t apply to my case):
<composite name="C2" requires="i4"
xmlns:foo=”http://foo”>
<component name="Y">
<implementation.composite name="foo:C1"/>
<service name="S" requires="i6">
</component>
</composite>
Imagine that i4 and i6 are
mutually exclusive. According to the structural hierarchy, this should
be OK, and i6 will override i4.
However, i4 will also be pushed
down into the “foo:C1” composite, as if it had written:
<composite name="C1" requires="i4"
targetNamespace=”http://foo”>
<service name="S"
promotes="X/S">
<binding.ws>
</service>
<component name="X">
<implementation.java
class="foo"/>
<service
name="S">
</component>
</composite>
The structural inheritance
will then push that i4 down to the service, as if it had said:
<service name="S"
promotes="X/S" requires=”i4”>
This means that the implied
component type of C1 will have a service with @requires=”i4”.
Finally, due to Rule 2, the
@requires=”i4” of the C1’s component type will conflict with the service
line in C2:
<service
name="S" requires="i6"> -- conflicts with
the “i4” that came up from the component type
Do you see the problem?
Michael
From: Mike Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 6:30 AM
To: OASIS Policy
Subject: [sca-policy] ISSUE 38 - Improve description of the overides
available to the two different hierarchies in SCA: Proposal, Updated
Folks,
Here is an updated version of the proposal for Issue 38:
Comments welcome.
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
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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]