Vamsi,
Sorry for missing the earlier set of
comments.
Responses inline and updates included
in new Rev4 version of spec.
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:
From:
C Vamsi <>
To:
Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:
"OASIS Assembly" <>
Date:
10/02/2009 17:35
Subject:
Re: [sca-assembly] Some review comments
on sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf
Mike,
I will raise new issues as per your comments. There are more comments
(the
first set actually) in an e-mail that I sent before the one you acted on.
See [1]
[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200902/msg00005.html
++Vamsi
Apache Tuscany Committer http://tuscany.apache.org
Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC http://geronimo.apache.org
Mike Edwards
<mike_edwards@uk.
ibm.com>
To
"OASIS
Assembly"
10/02/2009 22:47
<>
cc
Subject
Re: [sca-assembly]
Some review
comments
on
sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf
Vamsi,
I'm sorry for missing your comments ahead of the call. I've had a
proper
look at them now and I've
acted on them as described inline...
I incorporated the changes into an updated Rev4 along with the 3 editorial
fixes from the TC call today.
If anyone has any problems with these editorial fixes, please shout now!
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:
From: C Vamsi <>
To: C Vamsi <>
Cc:
Date: 04/02/2009 20:55
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Some review comments on
sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf
Some more comments:
Line 870: 4.3.1 instead of 5.3.1?
Updated as an editorial fix
Section 4.4 name should be Component Property?
No - the whole section is "Component" and this is a subheading
Line 1064: @name attribute
Fixed as an editorial
Line 1064-1066: Should the wording be made consistent with that of service
and reference elements?
I think that's a subject for an Issue
Line 1078: change to "Overrides the many specified for this property
in the
component type of the implementation."
Fixed as an editorial
Lines 1152-1154: Multiple property elements with same property name is
a
violation of "[ASM50030]"
I agree. That's a subject for an issue.
Line 1157: stockQuoteService with a small s
Fixed as an editorial
Line 1166: stockQuoteService with a small s
Fixed as an editorial
++Vamsi
Apache Tuscany Committer http://tuscany.apache.org
Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC http://geronimo.apache.org
C
Vamsi/India/IBM@I
BMIN
To
05/02/2009 01:26
cc
Subject
[sca-assembly]
Some review comments
on
sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf
I have reviewed the document partially and here are some comments on
sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf:
Line 212: component with small c
Fixed - editorial
Line 225: us xs:QName for consistency
Fixed - editorial
Line 245: What does implementation 0..1 mean?
Means that <implementation/>
is optional with maxOccurs=1
Line 377: "zero or more" in bold font.
Fixed - editorial
Line 431-432: Change to "The implementation can use the supplied value
in
any way that it chooses."
Fixed - editorial
Section 3.1.4 does not talk about 0..1 for implementation
It has a "?" in the pseudo-schema
Line 464: implementation instead of implementationervice
Fixed - editorial
Line 508: tags or annotations?
Fixed - editorial
Should example in 3.3 use @Service annotation as well?
It does not have to
Line 578: Should the componentType have implementation.java tag as it is
computed from the java class?
No
Line 596: Is it possible to get the default value for the field by
introspection?
No, it isn't - this needs fixing via an issue
Line 600: "Component Implementation" spec instead of "Client
and
Implementation" spec?
Yes, Fixed - editorial - also removed reference
to "SCA Example Code document"
Line 607-608: Not true for Java EE
I don't understand this comment. There
does not appear to be a problem with those lines.
Line 609: in xxx.composite is xxx needed?
"xxx" indicates that some kind
of file name is required
Section 4.1 name should be Component Implementation?
I take the view that this is implied by the
Section 4 heading which is "Component"
Section 4.2 name should be Component Service?
Ditto
Section 4.3 name shoulde Component Reference?
Ditto
Lines 791-792: replace 2 occurrences of "service" with "reference".
Fixed - thanks for spotting that - the error
was actually in the appendix C section that
holds all the normative statements.
I will post more comments as I review further. I would like to know
if I
need to raise NEW ISSUE for some of these.
++Vamsi
Apache Tuscany Committer http://tuscany.apache.org
Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC http://geronimo.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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
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
