Hi Mike,
A few comments/questions on the proposal in the attached
sca-javaci-draft-20070926_Issue55b.doc are given below.
Line 395: It should be @Reference instead of @Required
Line 398: It should be @Reference instead of @Required
Lines 475-477: Why is the multiplicity 1..1 (equivalent to required=true)
incase of interface and 0..n (equivalent to required=false) incase of
array/collection of interface? Should it be 0..1 instead of 1..1 so that
it is consistent (equivalent to required=false) in both cases? Or else we
should change 0..n to 1..n so that it is consistent with required=true
which is the default value for required attibute of @Reference annotation.
++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 Java"
12/12/2008 15:57 <>
cc
Subject
[sca-j] [ISSUE 55] SCA Java
Specifications do not Adequately
Define the ComponentType of a Java
implementation - Updated Proposal
Folks,
Here is an updated version of the proposal for Issue 55:
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:
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
(See attached file: sca-javaci-draft-20070926_Issue55b.doc)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
