Vamsi,
Thanks for a thorough review. I've
attached an updated version of the proposal that fixes the errors you found
on
Lines 395, 398.
As for 475-477, my reasoning goes as
follows:
- if a field is present that looks like
a reference, then I think that field would typically have to have a value
in order
for it to work - so I take the view
that it must be 1..1 rather than 0..1 by default, otherwise we are likely
to run into
errors fairly often.
- if a field is present that is an array/collection
of references, then I take the view that by default Java code would
typically always test the size of the
array/collection, which means that a size of 0 is acceptable and so it
is more
permissive to have the multiplicity
default to 0..n rather than 1..n.
This is a personal view and it would
be interesting to get the views of other folk on the TC. I can see
the argument
about consistency, but on the other
hand, if the developer wants to be specific, we have some very nice annotations
that will get them exactly what they
want...
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 Java" <>
Date:
12/12/2008 11:33
Subject:
Re: [sca-j] [ISSUE 55] SCA Java Specifications
do not Adequately Define the ComponentType of a Java implementation - Updated
Proposal
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[attachment
"sca-javaci-draft-20070926_Issue55b.doc" deleted by Mike Edwards/UK/IBM]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
sca-javaci-draft-20070926_Issue55c.doc
